When one interviewer mentioned the “Church policy” that “blacks had the mark of Cain,” President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flecks of history.” (Interview with Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes television program, broadcast 7 April 1996, on the CBS television network.)

It is my intention in this post to present evidence that this subject is still relevant to the Church today, and that not only is it worthy of discussion, but that members of the Church should in fact be very worried about it. In other words, I will present proof of the following indisputable facts:

The scriptures (or “Standard Works”) clearly teach that in ancient times a certain black race of people were cursed from holding the Priesthood.

Church leaders have taught that modern-day black Africans are of that same cursed race mentioned in the scriptures.

Church leaders have taught that this curse has not yet been removed.

Church leaders have taught that so long as this curse remains, modern-day black people cannot hold the Priesthood, and that if other races intermarry with black people, they will bring the same curse upon themselves and upon their posterity.

Church leaders have taught that this curse would not be removed until after the end of the Millennium, and thus blacks would not receive the Priesthood until after the end of the Millennium.

Church leaders have taught that if the Church were to prematurely give the Priesthood to its black members, as well as permit interracial marriage with black people—before the curse has been removed—the Church would instantly lose the Priesthood, and would thereafter be destroyed.

Since the 1960s, some Church leaders have expressed their disagreement with the Church policy of witholding the Priesthood from its black members, and have stated their belief that there is no scriptural justification for it.

In 1978, Spencer W. Kimball and other Church leaders publicly claimed that they had received a revelation from the Lord giving them permission to extend full privileges to every worthy member of the Church, reglardless of race or color.

In 1978, the Church began ordaining black men to the Priesthood, and began allowing white members of the Church to marry black members of the Church.

The alleged 1978 revelation contradicts the statements of former Church leaders in regard to when blacks would receive the Priesthood. Bruce R. McConkie has publicly admitted the existence of these contradictions, and has asked members who are aware of them to forget everything past Church leaders have said on the subject prior to 1978.

Strong evidence suggests that black people are still under the curse.

The scriptures teach us that when the Millennium commences—when God restores and sets many things right—black people will no longer be permitted to enter the Temple.

In ancient scripture, we read that “the seed of Cain were black” (Moses 7:22).

Q.—Does this mean that modern-day black people are descendants of Cain?

A.—“If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ [that] spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 468.)

Did any other prophet speak it before Brigham Young? Yes. Joseph Smith Jr. said that “negroes” are the “sons of Cain” (25 Jan. 1842, “History of Joseph Smith,” The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 5, no. 20, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 25 July 1855], p. 153; also History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by the Church via Deseret News, 1908], p. 501).

Q.—Are Cain and his posterity cursed from holding the Priesthood and from receiving the ordinances of the temple?

A.—“When the mark was put upon Cain, … the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his seed. … A man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it? Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off; but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes that the [Lord] says he will have it taken away. … In the Kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government. … It is the Lord’s will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.” “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other prophet ever spake it before, I will say it now, in the name of Jesus Christ, I know it is true, and others know it!” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 468, 469, 471.)

“No one known to have in his veins negro blood, (it matters not how remote a degree) can either have the priesthood in any degree or the blessings of the Temple of God; no matter how otherwise worthy he may be.” (The First Presidency, c. 1907, in Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 1, edited by Robert A. Rees [Los Angeles, California: Published by the Dialogue Foundation, Spring 1973], p. 38.)

Q.—What happens if a black man has the Priesthood conferred upon him, or he is ordained to an office in the Priesthood?

Referring to an instance where “the elders of the church laid hands on a Negro and blessed him ‘apparently’ with the Priesthood,” Joseph Fielding Smith said that “they could not give that which the Lord had denied” (Letter to Mr. Joseph H. Henderson, 10 Apr. 1963, copy in possession of the author of this website).

As previously quoted, Brigham Young said that “It is the Lord’s will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.” (5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 469.)

A.—Joseph F. Smith stated that whenever “the priesthood may have been bestowed upon men tainted with this blood, in all such cases their ordinations must be regarded as invalid” (in Minutes of Meeting, 26 Aug. 1908, George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah).

Q.—Do black people have any right to hold government office?

A.—“As to the men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last; they have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it. … I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate me or any brethren with regard to church or state government. I may vary in my view from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken and think that they know more than I do, but I know [that] I know more than they do. If the Africans cannot bear rule in the church of God, what business have they to bear rule in the state and government affairs of this territory or any others? In the government affairs of states and territories and kingdoms, by right God should govern. He should rule over nations and control kings. If we suffer the Devil to rule over us, we shall not accomplish any good. I want the Lord to rule and be our governor and dictator, and we are the boys to execute [it]. … I will not consent for a moment to have the children of Cain rule me nor my brethren. No, it is not right. But, say some, is there anything of this kind in the Constitution the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege [of] telling right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right out in the Constitution, ‘that every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years,’ etc. My mind is the same today as when we were pouring over that constitution; any light upon the subject is the same, my judgment is the same, only a little more so. Perhaps I have said enough upon this subject. I have given you the true principles and doctrine. No man can vote for me or my brethren in this territory who has not the privilege of acting in church affairs. Every man and woman and child in this territory are citizens; to say the contrary is all nonsense to me. The Indians are citizens, the Africans are citizens, and the Jews that come from Asia, that are almost entirely of the blood of Cain. It is our duty to take care of them and administer to them in all the acts of humanity and kindness. They shall have the right of citizenship, but shall not have the right to dictate in church and state matters. The abolitionists of the East have caressed them and their whole argument is calculated to darken counsel as it was here yesterday. As for our bills passing here, we may lay the foundation for what? For men to come here from Africa or elsewhere by hundreds of thousands. When these men come here from the islands, are they going to hold offices in government? No. It is for men who understand the knowledge of government affairs to hold such offices, and on the other make provisions for them to plow and to reap and enjoy all that human beings can enjoy, and we protect them in it. Do we know how to ameliorate the condition of these people? We do. Suppose that five thousands of them come from the Pacific Islands and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan or from China. Not one of them would know how to vote for a government officer. They, therefore, ought not in the first thing have anything to do in government affairs.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 469, 470; paragraphing omitted.)

“The African enjoys the right of receiving the first principles of the Gospel, this liberty is held out to all these servants, they enjoy the liberty of being baptized for the remission of sins, and of receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; they enjoy the privilege of living humble before the Lord their great master, so as to enjoy the spirit of the Lord continually; in short, as far as the common comforts of life, salvation, light, truth, enjoyment, and understanding is concerned, the black African has precisely the same privilege as the white man. But they cannot hold the Priesthood, and inasmuch as they cannot bear any share in the Priesthood, they cannot bear rule, they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them, they are a ‘servant of servants.’ ” (Brigham Young, 23 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 473–74.)

Q.—Is it really fair that black people should be denied certain blessings in this life simply because of the actions of their progenitor?

A.—According to Lorenzo Snow’s recollections, Brigham Young said that after Cain killed Abel, the spirits that were going to be born into Cain’s lineage “still looked up to him, and rather than forsake him they were willing to bear his burdens and share the penalty imposed upon him. This was understood when the curse was pronounced upon him.” (See Minutes of “Council Meeting,” 11 Mar. 1900, George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah.)

Q.—Who are “the people of Canaan”?

A.—In an obvious reference to Africa and its inhabitants, Enoch “prophesied” that “the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; for behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” (Moses 7:7–8).

The people of Canaan apparently lived upon the earth even as early as Enoch’s lifetime. We read that “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent” (Moses 7:12). Who exactly were the people of Canaan, and why didn’t Enoch call upon them? As we previously read, “there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people” (Moses 7:8). We also read that “the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among [the rest of the seed of Adam]” (Moses 7:22). It would thus appear that Canaan and his people were either the seed of Cain, or they had mixed with the seed of Cain and had thereby brought upon themselves the same curse.

Q.—How did the curse continue through the flood during the days of Noah?

A.—Noah was accompanied by seven other passengers on the ark. Two of these passengers were Ham and his wife. Ham was the son of Noah. (See 1 Peter 3:20; also Genesis 7:7, 13.)

Ham’s wife was a descendant of Canaan. “Thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land,” and “thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.” They were “cursed … as pertaining to the Priesthood,” because they were “of that lineage by which [they] could not have the right of Priesthood.” (Abraham 1:22, 24, 26, 27).

It would appear that not only was Ham’s wife a descendant of Canaan, but of Cain also. Hence John Taylor said that “after the flood the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed” (28 Aug. 1881, “Discourse By President John Taylor,” reported by G. F. Gibbs, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 30, no. 50, edited by Charles W. Penrose [Salt Lake City: Published by The Deseret News Company, 4 January 1882], p. 771; also “Discourse by President John Taylor,” reported by Geo. F. Gibbs, Journal of Discourses, vol. 22 [Liverpool: Published by Albert Carrington, 1882], p. 304).

Q.—Are modern-day black people descendants of Ham?

A.—Yes. Joseph Smith Jr. referred to “negroes” as the “descendants of Ham” and as the “sons of Ham.” (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 1, introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by the Church via Deseret News, 1902], p. 191; also April 1836, in Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Geauga Co., Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams and Co., April 1836], p. 290.)

John Taylor also wrote of the “descendants of Ham” who are cursed with a “black skin” (1 Apr. 1845, “A Short Chapter on a Long Subject,” Times and Seasons, vol. 6, no. 6, edited by John Taylor [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by John Taylor, 1 Apr. 1845], p. 857).

As previously mentioned, Ham’s wife was a descendant of both Canaan and Cain. Modern-day black people are thus descendants of Ham, Canaan, and Cain.

Q.—Did Ham’s posterity receive any new curses in addition to the ones they inherited from Cain?

A.—“Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon that same race, that they should be the ‘servant of servants,’ and they will be until that curse is removed, and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” (Brigham Young, 9 Oct. 1859, “Remarks,” reported by G. D. Watt, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 9, no. 34, edited by Elias Smith [Great Salt Lake City: Published by Elias Smith, 26 Oct. 1859], p. 266; also “Intelligence, etc.,” reported by G. D. Watt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, edited by Amasa Lyman [Liverpool: Published by Amasa Lyman, 1860], p. 290.)

After the flood, Ham had a son named “Canaan” (see Genesis 9:18), who may have been named after the previously mentioned ancestor of Ham’s wife. “After Ham had dishonored the holy priesthood” (John Taylor, 1 Apr. 1845, “A Short Chapter on a Long Subject,” Times and Seasons, vol. 6, no. 6, edited by John Taylor [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by John Taylor, 1 Apr. 1845], p. 857), Noah cursed Ham by cursing his son, Canaan, saying, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (Genesis 9:25).

Joseph Smith Jr. said: “I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! ‘And he said cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.—God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.’ (Gen. 9:25–27.) Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy.” (Apr. 1836, in Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams & Co., Apr. 1836], p. 290; paragraphing omitted.)

Commenting upon these same verses, John Taylor said: “History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.” (1 Apr. 1845, “A Short Chapter on a Long Subject,” Times and Seasons, vol. 6, no. 6, edited by John Taylor [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by John Taylor, 1 Apr. 1845], p. 857.)

In answer to the question, “Are the Moromons abolitionists?” the Prophet Joseph Smith replied, “No. … We do not believe in setting the Negroes free” (July 1838, Elders’ Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, vol. 1, no. 3, edited by Joseph Smith Jr. [Far West, Missouri: Published by Thomas B. Marsh, July 1838], p. 43).

Commenting upon the rumor that Mormons “were agoing to tamper with the slaves,” Brigham Young said that “we had never thought of such a thing. The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views upon slavery.” (18 Feb. 1855, “Discourse,” reported by G. D. Watt, Deseret News [weekly], vol. 4, no. 51, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 1 Mar. 1855], p. [2]; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, reported by G. D. Watt [Liverpool: Published by F. D. Richards, 1855], p. 184.)

“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the ‘servant of servants,’ and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord should permit them to welter under the curse, and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Brigham Young, 18 Feb. 1855, “Discourse,” Deseret News [weekly], vol. 4, no. 51, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 1 Mar. 1855], p. [2]; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, reported by G. D. Watt [Liverpool: Published by F. D. Richards, 1855], p. 172.)

When asked in an interview, “What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?” Brigham Young responsed that “we consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.” (13 July 1859, “An Overland Journey: Two Hours with Brigham Young,” New-York [Daily] Tribune, vol. 19, no. 5718 [New-York: Published by Horace Greeley & Co., 20 Aug. 1859], p. 5.)

Before the Utah Legislature, Brigham Young expounded upon this belief: “I will remark with regard to Slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the Ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in Slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in Slavery. … Suppose that we should have a servant, and he should be a Negro, it is all right, it is perfectly reasonable, and strictly according to the Holy Priesthood. … I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters, because they are not capable of ruling themselves. … I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude.” (23 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 473, 474.)

Q.—What is the correct way to practice the principle of slavery?

“In the present acceptation or usage of the term [‘slavery’], it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortal beings of the human species.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 469.)

In a message to the Utah Legislature, Brigham Young said: “It is unnecessary perhaps for me to indicate the true policy for Utah in regard to slavery. Restrictions of law and government make all servants; but human flesh to be dealt in as property, is not consistent or compatible with the true principles of government. My own feelings are that no property can or should be recognized as existing in slaves, either Indian or African.”

Brigham Young said that if men will begin to treat the slaves properly, then “shall the condition of the poor, forlorn, destitute, ignorant savage, or African, as the case may be, become ameliorated, and a foundation laid for their advancement in the scale of useful, exalting existence—useful to themselves, to their nations, and all who shall come within the purview of their influence. … The seed of Canaan will inevitably carry the curse which was placed upon them, until the same authority which placed it there, shall see proper to have it removed. Service is necessary; it is honorable; it exists in all countries and has existed in all ages; it probably will exist in some form in all time to come. … Thus, while servitude may and should exist, and that too upon those who are naturally designed to occupy the position of ‘servant of servants,’ yet we should not fall into the other extreme and make them as beasts of the field, regarding not the humanity which attaches to the colored race; nor yet elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those who Nature and Nature’s God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, “Governor’s Message,” Deseret News [weekly], vol. 2, no. 5, edited by W. Richards [Great Salt Lake City, U.T.: Printed by W. Richards, 10 Jan. 1852], p. [2].)

“I loathe the abuses to which the slave in a great many instances is exposed. … I would like masters to behave well to their servants, and to see that every person in this Territory is well used. When a master has a Negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than if he was free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have, but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.” (Brigham Young, 23 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 474.)

Q.—Is it permissible to interacially marry black people?

A.—“Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, … thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites.” (Genesis 24:2–3.)

“Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” (Genesis 28:1.)

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species.” (Joseph Smith Jr., 2 Jan. 1843, “History of Joseph Smith,” The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 5, no. 52, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 5 Mar. 1856], p. 409; also History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 5, introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by the Church via Deseret News, 1909], pp. 217–18.)

“The notion of amalgamation is devilish!—And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a negro!” (Oliver Cowdery, Apr. 1836, “The Abolitionists,” Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams & Co., Apr. 1836], p. 300.)

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, 8 Mar. 1863, “Remarks,” reported by G. D. Watt, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 12, no. 38, edited by Elias Smith [Great Salt Lake City: Published by Elias Smith, 18 Mar. 1863], p. 298; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, reported by G. D. Watt and J. V. Long [Liverpool: Published by Daniel H. Wells, 1865], p. 110.)

“Let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, and that brings the curse upon me and upon my generations; we will reap the same rewards with Cain. In the Priesthood I will tell you what it will do. Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man, woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them; it would do them good that they might be saved with their brethren. A man would shudder should they hear us talk about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, although the true principles of it are not understood. … We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are Negroes and said to be Jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled their seeds together. These Negro Jews may keep up all the outer ordinances of the Jewish religion, they may have their sacrifices, and they may perform all the religious ceremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Canaan, the Priesthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judah’s seed will never get any rule or blessings of the Priesthood until Cain gets it.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 469–70; paragraphing omitted.)

Q.—When will the curse upon the seed of Cain be removed?

A.—“How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it, until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises, and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last one of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” (Brigham Young, 9 Oct. 1859, “Remarks,” reported by G. D. Watt, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 9, no. 34, edited by Elias Smith [Great Salt Lake City: Published by Elias Smith, 26 Oct. 1859], p. 266; also “Intelligence, Etc.,” reported by G. D. Watt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, edited by Amasa Lyman [Liverpool: Published by Amasa Lyman, 1860], pp. 290–91.)

“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” (Brigham Young, 19 Aug. 1866, “Remarks,” reported by G. D. Watt, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 15, no. 45, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 10 Oct. 1866], p. 355; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, reported by G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, and D. W. Evans [Liverpool: Published by B. Young, Jun., 1867], p. 272.)

When Brigham Young uses the term “come up,” as in the two previous quotations, he is usually referring to being resurrected. More than once, for example, Brigham Young used the explicit phrase “come up in the resurrection.” (3 Oct. 1852, “Discourse,” Deseret News [weekly], vol. 4, no. 13 [Great Salt Lake City, U. T.: 11 May 1854], p. [4].) After searching through Brigham Young’s discourses for only a couple of minutes, I was able to find ten examples of where he used the term “come up” in the context of being resurrected.

In this quotation, Brigham Young explicitly mentions the resurrection: “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.” (Brigham Young, 3 Dec. 1854, “Discourse,” Deseret News [weekly], vol. 4, no. 48, edited by Albert Carrington [Great Salt Lake City: 8 Feb. 1855], p. [2]; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, reported by G. D. Watt [Liverpool: Published by F. D. Richards, 1855], p. 143.)

“When the mark was put upon Cain, Abel’s children were in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the Priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. … I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael’s seed. Then Cain’s seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 468.)

As quoted above, Brigham Young spoke of the seed of Cain not receiving the Priesthood until “the redemption of the earth.” When will the earth be redeemed? Orson Pratt said that “after the seventh millennium has passed away,” then the “final transformation of this earth” would take place; in other words, the earth “will be redeemed, or, we might say resurrected.” (20 Aug. 1871, “Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt,” reported by David W. Evans, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14 [Liverpool: Published by Albert Carrington, 1872], pp. 235, 236.)

Q.—Have God’s people ever mixed with the seed of Cain in the past?

A.—In the Book of Ezra, we read that “the people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. … O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons. … And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O Lord God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.” (Ezra 9:1–2, 10–12, 13–15.)

What was done about this? “Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. … Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem. … And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.” (Ezra 10:1–5, 9, 10–12.)

In the verses quoted above, at least these abominations were not officially sanctioned by the Priesthood; the people were humble enough to acknowledge that they were in error, and did what was necessary to fix the problem. If such were not the case, it is reasonable to expect that their standing with the Lord would have been much different.

Q.—What will happen to those who oppose the Lord’s decrees concerning the curse that is upon the seed of Cain?

A.—“The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Apr. 1836, in Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams & Co., Apr. 1836], p. 290.)

Q.—What would happen if the Church officially began sanctioning interracial marriages with the seed of Cain, and officially began offering full privileges to it’s black members, before the curse has been lifted?

A.—“Let this church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth: we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Counsel, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the Black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction; we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed. … What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against [it] all the day long. … I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. It shall not be while I am here.” (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], pp. 470, 471.)

Q.—Are the leaders of the Church aware that their 1978 decision contradicts what has been said by previous Church leaders?

A.—In their official statement, the First Presidency said that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” They mention this in an attempt to justify their decision, probably hoping at the same time that people would be ignorant of the fact that while these “promises” do indicate that at some future time the blacks would receive the Priesthood, they also indicate that this time would not be until after the Millennium. In other words, the very “promises” they mention actually contradict their decision rather than validate it.

Bruce R. McConkie asserted that this policy-change “is one of the signs of the times. It is something that had to occur before the Second Coming.” (“The New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981], p. 136.)

In an interview with Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos at the Church Office Building, Elder LeGrand Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles denied the fact that past Church leaders had ever revealed the specific time when blacks would receive the Priesthood. He also seemed to suggest that there never has been any legitimate reason to deny black people the Priesthood so long as they are living righteously:

Wesley P. Walters: “Now, with this new revelation—has it brought any new insights or new ways of looking at the Book of Abraham? Because I think traditionally it is thought of the curse of Cain, coming through Canaanites and on the black-skinned people, and therefore denying the priesthood?”

LeGrand Richards: “We considered that with all the ‘for’s’ and the ‘against’s’ and decided that with all of that, if they lived their lives, and did the work, that they were entitled to their blessings.”

Wesley P. Walters: “But you haven’t come up with any new understanding of the Book of Abraham? I just wondered whether there would be a shift in that direction. Is the recent revelation in harmony with what the past prophets have taught, of when the Negro would receive the priesthood?”

LeGrand Richards: “Well, they have held out the thought that they would ultimately get the priesthood, but they never determined the time for it. And so when this situation that we face down there in Brazil—Brother Kimball worried a lot about it—how the people are so faithful and devoted. The president of the Relief Society of the stake is a colored woman down there in one of the stakes. If they do the work, why it seems like that the justice of the Lord would approve of giving them the blessing. Now it’s all conditional upon the life that they live, isn’t it?” (16 Aug. 1978; copy of transcript in possession of author of website.)

During one of President Gordon B. Hinckley’s many television interviews, he was asked why “from 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church.” President Hinckley responded, “Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.” No mention is made of God having anything to do with it. (Interview with Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes television program, broadcast 7 April 1996, on the CBS television network.) When asked the same question on a different occasion, President Hinckley said, “I don’t know what the reason was.” (Interview on the Australian Broadcasting Company’s Compass television program, 8 April 2005.) Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, told his PBS interviewer that “we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.” (4 Mar. 2006, http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html.)

Some people believed that witholding the Priesthood from black members was entirely motivated by arrogance and racism, rather than it being a policy of divine origin. When an interviewer brought up to Gordon B. Hinckley the fact that “until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church,” and then asked “why it took so long time to overcome the racism?” President Hinckley simply responsed, “I don’t know. I don’t know. [long pause] I can only say that. [long pause] But it’s here now. We’re carrying on a very substantial work on Africa for instance and in Brazil. We’re working among their people developing them.” (Interview with Helmut Nemetschek, ZDF, 29 Jan. 2002.)

At the April 2006 General Conference, President Hinckley said: “Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. … How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? … Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church.” (1 Apr. 2006, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign, vol. 36, no. 5, edited by Jay E. Jensen [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, May 2006], p. 58.)

Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles admitted that the 1978 decision was in contradiction to statements made by previous Church leaders, but thought that people who were troubled by these contradictions needed to repent and should simply ignore them: “There are statements in our literature by the early brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, ‘You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?’ And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.” (“The New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981], pp. 131–32; paragraphing omitted.)

Bruce R. McConkie wants us to reject everything from the past that contradicts this new “revelation;” yet, Joseph Smith tells us that we can know something is fraudulent by it “contradicting a former revelation.” (“Try the Spirits,” Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 11, edited by Joseph Smith [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by Joseph Smith, 1 Apr. 1842], p. 747.)

Did Spencer W. Kimball contradict a former revelation? How did Brigham Young know when the blacks would receive the Priesthood? Did he receive a revelation? Did he hear it from Joseph Smith?

One thing people seem to think they do know for sure is that Spencer W. Kimball did receive a revelation; and since a revelation carries more weight than mere statements mentioned over the pulpit, we are justified in accepting Spencer W. Kimball’s words and rejecting Brigham Young’s. These conclusions, however, are based upon incorrect assumptions, which I will now attempt to prove.

Q.—If Spencer W. Kimball did in fact receive a revelation, then where is it? Has anyone seen it or read it?

A.—On 30 Sept. 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency, made the following statement: “In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.”

President Tanner then read to the conference the announcement that was previously sent to Church officers throughout the world, and which was subsequently published in the Church News, wherein the First Presidency stated that “[the Lord] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.”

President Tanner then said: “Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.” According to the report, “The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.” (See “Official Declaration—2,” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981], pp. 293–94.)

According to the above, this “revelation” was presented to all of the General Authorities prior to the Conference. At least they got to see it, right? But instead of presenting the actual revelation to the General Conference, President Tanner only read the announcement about the revelation. Why isn’t the general membership of the Church as privileged as the General Authorities? This is the first time in the history of the Church where the conference was expected to accept and sustain a revelation by vote without being allowed to actually read or hear the revelation for themselves. This is the first clue that something is not right.

Q.—What kind of revelation did Spencer W. Kimball receive in 1978?

A.—Orson Pratt said that “whenever God has called and authorized men to perform a work in any age or dispensation, it has been done by revelations, and not by mere impressions, or some undefinable internal feelings, which leave the mind in uncertainty and doubt.” (1 Nov. 1850, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, no. 2 [Liverpool: Printed by R. James], p. 17.)

The kind of revelation that leaves no room for uncertainty or doubt is the kind where the Lord speaks in the first person. These are usually written down, and sometimes contain the words “thus saith the Lord” or something similar. This is the kind of revelation the Lord usually gives when the subject in question is of major importance.

It is obvious from the way in which they worded their public statements on the subject that Spencer W. Kimball and his associates wanted the general membership of the Church to think that this was the type of revelation he received—a verbal first-person message directly from the Lord.

The brethren did not, however, hide from the real truth when specifically questioned about it. They were honest about the fact that this was not the type of revelation President Kimball received. Perhaps they supposed there was no harm in being honest about it on certain occasions, because most of the membership of the Church had already automatically assumed that President Kimball had written down an actual first-person revelation from the Lord, and to this day most members have never questioned it.

Remember that President N. Eldon Tanner told the members of the Church that “President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.”

This statement appears to be contradicted by what Elder LeGrand Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles told Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos during an interview at the Church Office Building. According to Elder Richards, it was not the revelation that was presented to the General Authorties, but only the announcement about the revelation:

Wesley P. Walters: “On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I’ve heard all kinds of stories: I’ve heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?”

LeGrand Richards: “Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It’s going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don’t change, then they can’t even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray—and we did—that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office—individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can’t always express everything that’s in your heart. You’re part of the group, you see—so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday—we meet every Thursday—the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement—to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it—the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it. … And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o’clock, of all the other General Authorities—that includes the Seventies’ Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.”

Not only does Elder Richards tell us that it was only the announcement, and not the revelation, that was presented to the General Authorities, but he also tells us that this announcement was the “revelation”:

Wesley P. Walters: “Now when President Kimball read this little announcement or paper, was that the same thing that was released to the press?”

LeGrand Richards: “Yes.”

Wesley P. Walters: “There wasn’t a special document as a ‘revelation,’ that he had and wrote down?”

LeGrand Richards: “We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.”

Wesley P. Walters: “Was that the letter you sent out to the various wards?”

LeGrand Richards: “And to the Church; and to the newspapers, yes.”

Chris Vlachos: “Will that become a part of ‘scripture’?”

LeGrand Richards: “Yes, I’ve already thought in my own mind of suggesting we add it to the Pearl of Great Price, just like those last two revelations that we’ve just added.” (16 Aug. 1978; copy of transcript in possession of author of website.)

Although the brethren (specifically Spencer W. Kimball, and N. Eldon Tanner in General Conference) referred to this announcement as the “revelation,” the announcement does make reference to a revelation that is separate from the announcement itself, upon which the decision and announcement were apparently based. What do we know about this other separate “revelation”? Was it a verbal first-person message from the Lord, or was it merely a good feeling that convinced the brethren that what they had already wanted to do was the right thing?

The website MormonThink.com provides us with this interesting account: “Although we don’t normally quote from unverified sources, we decided to add this account from someone we know that worked in the administrative staff at the MTC during the time of the announcement: We were told, by visiting General Authorities and others from the Church Office Building, that it was not a revelation, but a ‘negative revelation.’ That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood ‘unless He gave them a sign to the contrary.’ In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy. No one officially coming over from SLC to the MTC at the time denied this story. It was later that I heard the word ‘revelation’ actually used in conjunction with it.” (http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm.)

That the brethren do in fact believe in the legitimacy of what was referred to above as “negative revelation” is confirmed by Joel Skousen: “In the absence of direct revelation the Brethren work on the assumption that whatever they feel good about is the will of the Lord unless he corrects them. Pres. [Harold B.] Lee told that very thing to my uncle Cleon [Skousen].” (5 May 2010, 9:29 p.m., private e-mail correspondence.)

Spencer W. Kimball said that during his “meeting [with] the Council of the Twelve in the temple” where “this revelation and assurance” was allegedly received, he had “offered the final prayer,” in which he “told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if he didn’t want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted.” (“‘News’ interviews prophet,” Church News, vol. 49, no. 1 [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Deseret News, 6 Jan. 1979], p. 4.) This seems to confirm what has been said by some of the other brethren, which is that Spencer W. Kimball and his associates were attempting to implement their own personal desires.

This fact is also confirmed by the statement of the First Presidency in their announcement: “As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.” (“Official Declaration—2,” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981], p. 294.)

The bretheren, however, claim it was much more than a “negative revelation.” While they do admit that the policy-change was in accord with their own previously-existing desires, they also claim that the Lord confirmed to them through a powerful manifestation of the Holy Ghost that what they desired was right, and that it was the will of the Lord.

Bruce R. McConkie explains what happened: “Obviously, the Brethren have had a great anxiety and concern about this problem for a long period of time, and President Spencer W. Kimball has been exercised and has sought the Lord in faith. When we seek the Lord on a matter, with sufficient faith and devotion, he gives us an answer. … One underlying reason for what happened to us is that the Brethren asked in faith; they petitioned and desired and wanted an answer—President Kimball in particular. … On the first day of June 1978, the
First Presidency and the Twelve, after full discussion of the proposition and all the premises and principles that are involved, importuned the Lord for a revelation. President Kimball was mouth, and he prayed with great faith and great fervor. … When President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. … On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came. … This revelation that came on the first day of June 1978 was reaffirmed by the spirit of inspiration one week later on June 8, when the Brethren approved the document that was to be announced to the world. And then it was reaffirmed the next day, on Friday, June 9, with all of the General Authorities present in the temple, that is, all who were available. All received the assurance and witness and confirmation by the power of the Spirit that what had occurred was the mind, the will, the intent, and the purpose of the Lord.” (“The New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981], pp. 132, 133–34, 136; paragraphing omitted.)

Apparently rumors were spreading about miraculous occurences during these revelatory experiences. Bruce R. McConkie set the record straight: “Once again a revelation was given. … The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints have a complex: many of them desire to magnify and build upon what has occurred, and they delight to think of miraculous things. And maybe some of them would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation, which was one of the possibilities. Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true, and you as teachers in the Church Educational System will be in a position to explain and to tell your students that this thing came by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (“The New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981], p. 135.)

Elder McConkie does indicate, however, that the brethren who were present when the revelation was received did in fact hear a voice : “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fulness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. President Kimball’s prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice. All doubt and uncertainty fled. He knew the answer and we knew the answer. And we are all living witnesses of the truthfulness of the word so graciously sent from heaven.” (“The New Revelation on Priesthood,” Priesthood [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981], p. 128; paragraphing omitted.)

Apparently, this voice was heard in their minds through the Spirit, and not with their ears. Gordon B. Hinckley explains: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage. Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. It was a quiet and sublime occasion. There was not the sound ‘as of a rushing mighty wind,’ there were not ‘cloven tongues like as of fire’ (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there. No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls. It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, ‘And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.’ (Enos 1:10.) So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978.” (15 May 1988, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, vol. 18, no. 10, edited by Hugh W. Pinnock [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct. 1988], p. 70.)

In January 2007, Gordon B. Hinckley was interviewed by PBS for a documentary entitled The Mormons. Here is what was said about the 1978 “revelation”:

Interviewer: “We’ve spoken to a lot of people about the significance of that 1978 revelation [ending the ban on people with African blood becoming priests]. Blacks and whites and Mormons describe it as one of the most extraordinary moments in the church’s history in the 20th century. I haven’t spoken to anybody who was there, but I have read what you’ve said and written about that moment. Can you talk about it?”

Gordon B. Hinckley: “It was a landmark occasion. We were in the temple. We gathered in prayer, and President [Spencer] Kimball led [us] in prayer, and he talked about it. It had been on his mind for a good while. And as he prayed, he talked with the Lord about it, and there just settled over us a feeling that this is the right thing; the time has come; now is the opportunity. And on the basis of that we proceeded.”

Interviewer: “In some of your speeches and writings on the subject, you also used language that I would love to know more about. You felt that a conduit to God had opened up and almost a Pentecostal spirit [was there] in the room.”

Gordon B. Hinckley: “No, it wasn’t like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed. And this made all the difference in the world. We’ve grown strong in Africa and in Brazil and in other places. There is no race bias among us. It’s been well received all over the church, and I’m satisfied in my own mind, as one who was there, that the right thing happened at the right time in the right way.”

Interviewer: “I gather for President Kimball it was something he brought to the Lord on many occasions, that he prayed night after night. Is that true?”

Gordon B. Hinckley: “That’s my understanding. This was not just all of a sudden. This had been on his mind for a good long time. He had prayed about it, worried about it, talked about it. And then it happened.”

Interviewer: “Could I ask you a little about revelation itself? Some scholars who have not experienced it describe it as communication with God, but distinct from impressions or insights. How would you describe it or explain it?”

Gordon B. Hinckley: “I think it’s best described in the experience of Elijah: When there was a great wind and the Lord was not in the wind; and a great fire and the Lord was not in the fire; and then a still small voice, and the Lord was there. That’s the best description I know of the process of revelation.” (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/hinckley.html.)

Q.—Were the Brethren in 1978 deceived?

A.—A powerful manifestation from the Holy Ghost certainly counts as a revelation. The problem, however, is that this 1978 revelation still stands in contradiction to what was taught by past Church leaders. Is it possible that Spencer W. Kimball and his associates were mistaken?

Joseph Smith Jr. gave this warning to the members of the Church: “One great evil is that men … imagine that when there is any thing like power, revelation, or vision manifested that it must be of God. … Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God. … The world always mistook false prophets for true ones.” He further stated that we can know a manifestation is false by it “contradicting a former revelation.” (“Try the Spirits,” Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 11, edited by Joseph Smith [Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois: Published by Joseph Smith, 1 Apr. 1842], pp. 744, 747.)

Brigham Young said: “I told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given he would suffer the devil to give revelations. … I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have truth they would have error sent unto them, and they would believe it.” (8 June 1873, “Discourse,” reported by David W. Evans, The Deseret News, vol. 22, no. 20, edited by George Q. Cannon [Salt Lake City: Published by George Q. Cannon, 18 June 1873], p. 308.)

Along the same lines, Paul tells us that, regarding those who “received not the love of the truth, … God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10, 11.)

Q.—Do we have any more detailed information about the events leading up to the 1978 policy-change?

A.—A noted historian, D. Michael Quinn, provides us with the following information: “On 12 November 1969 Stanford University refused to participate in athletic competitions with BYU because of the church’s refusal to ordain blacks. First Counselor Hugh B. Brown had been on record for six years as favoring an end to this ban. In 1969 he wrote of the denial of priesthood to those of black African ancestry:

“ ‘Personally I doubt if we can maintain or sustain ourselves in the position which we seem to have adopted but which has no justification as far as the scriptures are concerned so far as I know. I think we are going to have to change our decision on that. The President says that it can come only by revelation. If that be true then it will come in due course. I think it is one of the most serious problems confronting us because of course it affects the millions of colored people.’

“This matter ‘caused many tense moments, tremendous debate, and unrest,’ Harold B. Lee’s biographer acknowledged, ‘particularly in the Church leadership ranks.’ A First Presidency secretary also noted that this Stanford situation ‘touched off another round of debates as to whether this policy was based on principle or was merely a practice.’

“In November 1969 Brown privately lobbied Stanford University to delay their decision to boycott BYU. The night before Stanford’s announcement Brown told the university’s vice-president that he expected the church to drop this restriction. Shortly after Stanford’s decision Brown ‘was able to get a proposal allowing full priesthood for Blacks approved by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.’ With church president David O. McKay unable to function, the way was now open for the two counselors and the Quorum of Twelve to issue a joint declaration granting priesthood to those of black African ancestry. Second counselor N. Eldon Tanner confided to BYU’s president Ernest Wilkinson on 3 December 1969 that ‘a special committee was to report on the negro situation.’ Wilkinson labeled his memorandum of the conversation as ‘ULTRA CONFIDENTIAL.’ Apostle Harold B. Lee, an increasingly powerful member of the Twelve, was absent during his quorum’s decision and rejected it upon his return. Lee not only opposed giving priesthood to blacks, he also held ‘the traditional belief as revealed in the Old Testament that the races ought to be kept together.’

“Lee persuaded the Quorum of Twelve to rescind its vote. Then he pressured the first counselor to sign a statement which reaffirmed the priesthood restriction on blacks ‘in view of confusion that has arisen.’ Brown’s grandson relates how the first counselor surrendered his deeply felt convictions to Apostle Lee:

“ ‘Grandfather managed to add language to Elder Lee’s statement endorsing full civil rights for all citizens, but he still resisted signing the statement. However, he suffered from advanced age and the late stages of Parkinson’s disease and was ill with the Asian flu. With Grandfather in this condition, Elder Lee brought tremendous pressure to bear upon him, arguing that with President McKay incapacitated Grandfather was obligated to join the consensus within the Quorum of the Twelve. Grandfather, deeply ill, wept as he related this story to me just before he signed the statement that bore his and President Tanner’s names.’

“Lee’s reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort involving Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinckley, and G. Homer Durham. To this committee-produced document, Brown made his addition which endorsed civil rights. Dated 15 December 1969, this extraordinarily important First Presidency document was signed only by the two counselors.

“Brown did not accept gracefully the defeat of his effort to reverse the church’s ban against African Americans. Less than a week after he had reluctantly signed Lee’s statement, Brown told a San Francisco newspaper reporter that the church’s priesthood ban against blacks ‘will change in the not too distant future.’ Known for ‘his fiery temper,’ Lee privately exploded on 27 December, saying that Brown had been ‘talking too much.’

“Lee’s biographer observes that because ‘misleading announcements in the media caused much confusion during the Christmas holidays of 1969, the statement, which earlier had been circulated to Church leaders in missions, stakes, and wards, was released nationally. It appeared in print for the Latter-day Saints to read in the Church News, on Saturday, January 10, 1970.’ The most recent ‘misleading announcement’ was a published claim that Harold B. Lee was responsible for the Presidency’s statement. Brown was probably also the source for that disclosure. Unaware of all these discussions due to his mental incapacity, President McKay died a week after the statement’s publication.

“Not surpisingly, there was no change in this policy of priesthood restriction dunng the presidencies of McKay’s two successors. Lee was first counselor to McKay’s immediate successor Joseph Fielding Smith, and Lee set the administrative agenda. When asked about the priesthood restriction against blacks on the day he became LDS president in July 1972, Harold B. Lee announced that he ‘intended to stand by and wait until the Lord speaks.’ That passivity did not result in a revelation, and Lee’s support of racial segregation did not predispose him to actively seek such a revelation.

“Five years after Lee’s death, church president Spencer W. Kimball in June 1978 extended priesthood ordination to all Mormon men of black African ancestry. For decades he had been troubled about this racial restriction, and was among the apostles who unsuccessfully voted for this proposal eight-and-a-half years earlier. This change in LDS policy was unique in two respects: the length of time it took for the church president to indicate his intentions to his associates in the hierarchy; and the care with which he obtained their gradual assent before he actually put the proposal to a vote.

“As recently revealed by a secretary to the First Presidency, in early 1977 Kimball began ‘to focus on it intensely’ and then decided to end the priesthood restriction in the near future. Remarkably, the church president indicated this to a faithful Mormon of black African ancestry, but not to any of his associates in the LDS hierarchy.

“At the cornerstone-laying ceremony for the Brazilian temple on 9 March 1977, Kimball privately told Helvecio Martins to prepare himself to receive the priesthood. He pointedly asked if Martins ‘understood the implications of what President Kimball had said,’ and the African-Brazilian ‘said he understood.’ Kimball waited more than a year before he informed any general authority of his intentions.

“Although he was keeping his own counsel, Spencer W. Kimball began laying the groundwork for ending the priesthood ban. On 22 February 1978 he issued a First Presidency letter to all stake and mission leaders: ‘If there is no evidence to indicate that a man has Negro blood, you would not be justified in withholding the priesthood and temple blessings from him, if he is otherwise worthy.’ This stopped denial of priesthood merely on the basis of black African ‘appearance,’ yet only the church president and a Brazilian black Mormon knew that this was a prelude to ending the ban entirely—and soon.

“On 23 March 1978 ‘President Kimball advised his counselors that he had had a wakeful night struggling with the question of priesthood restrictions and felt they should be lifted.’ He and his counselors discussed the matter for a month before he informed the Twelve. He asked them to join the First Presidency in prayer as a group and individually about the matter. Kimball met privately with individual apostles who expressed their ‘individual thoughts’ about his suggestion to end the priesthood ban.

“After discussing this in several temple meetings and private discussions, Kimball wrote a statement ‘in longhand removing all priesthood restrictions on blacks’ and presented it to his counselors on 30 May. He then asked his counselors and the apostles ‘to fast and pray that the Lord would make his mind and will clear in this matter’ at their temple meeting on 1 June. At the temple council that day ‘the feeling was unanimous that the time had come to lift the restrictions.’ In the prayer circle of the men on this occasion, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie testified that ‘we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will of the Lord,’ while Apostle David B. Haight affirmed: ‘Each was witness to a transcendent heavenly event.’ Gordon B. Hinckley added this clarification: ‘No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the spirit whispered into our minds and our very souls.’

“On 7 June 1978 Kimball informed his counselors that ‘through inspiration he had decided to lift the restrictions on priesthood.’ In the meantime he had asked three apostles (including Boyd K. Packer) to prepare ‘suggested wording for the public announcement of the decision.’ The First Presidency used the three documents to prepare a fourth preliminary statement which was ‘then reviewed, edited, and approved by the First Presidency. This document was taken to the council meeting with the Twelve on Thursday, June 8, 1978.’ The apostles made additional “minor editorial changes’ in the nearly final statement which was then presented to all general authorities the next day, just hours before its public announcement.

Some interesting things we learn from the above is that “in early 1977 Kimball began ‘to focus on it intensely’ and then decided to end the priesthood restriction in the near future.” In early 1978, “Spencer W. Kimball began laying the groundwork for ending the priesthood ban.” Finally, we learn that “Kimball wrote a statement ‘in longhand removing all priesthood restrictions on blacks’ and presented it to his counselors on 30 May [1978],” two days before the alleged revelation was received. If the Lord’s answer would have been that the curse has not been removed, and that the priesthood restriction should continue, would Spencer W. Kimball have been prepared to receive such an answer? He was already moving in the direction he personally wanted, before even receiving the alleged confirmation from the Lord. If one should argue that Spencer W. Kimball already knew the will of the Lord, prior to June 1978, and that he was simply providing the rest of the apostles with the opportunity of coming to know for themselves, I will remind you that during Spencer W. Kimball’s “meeting [with] the Council of the Twelve in the temple,” in June 1978, where “this revelation and assurance” was allegedly received, he had “offered the final prayer,” in which he “told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if he didn’t want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted.” (“ ‘News’ interviews prophet,” Church News, vol. 49, no. 1 [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Deseret News, 6 Jan. 1979], p. 4.) It is clear to me from these words that Spencer W. Kimball did not yet know the mind and will of the Lord.

Another interesting bit of information comes from a book by John Heinerman and Anson Shupe. According to their research, church leaders hired a consulting firm, rather than just consulting with the Lord: “Defenders of the Church argue that there was little external pressure on President Kimball for such a ‘revelation.’ The activist phase of the civil rights movement, for example, had largely subsided by the late 1970s. The defenders’ view holds that the ‘revelation’ cannot be explained away by circumstantial evidence or the conjecture of adverse public opinion. No specific ‘smoking guns’ can be produced to link outside influences to the Prophet Kimball’s announcement; hence it is assumed to have come literally through revelation from God Almighty.

“In fact, evidence exists that the Church made its much-publicized decision to admit blacks to the Mormon priesthood after a deliberate, rational consideration of public opinion, future Church membership growth, and similar factors. In 1971 the First Presidency acquired the services of one of America’s largest general management and consulting firms, Cresup, McCormick & Paget (CMP) in New York City. This firm had built a solid reputation in managing such corporate strategies as mergers and acquisitions for well-known clients like Ford and General Motors. On the advice of Mormon corporate advisers, such as J. Willard Marriott and David Kennedy, LDS President Harold B. Lee requested that CMP study how the Church’s communications organization could commit resources more efficiently to improve internal communications as well as public relations. No mention was made in the CMP report of the Church’s racial policy, but Church leaders seemed interested in applying modern management perspectives to their own goals and problems.

“In 1974 and 1975 the First Presidency under new President Spencer W. Kimball authorized three more studies by CMP. One study produced a report for the Church’s Health Services Corporation on how to streamline its operations and make the organization more cost-efficient and resulted in the Church’s divesting itself entirely of its unprofitable hospital system. Two other studies were done for the LDS Social Services Department and Welfare Department and for the Presiding Bishopric’s Office.

“In 1975 one final CMP study was carried out for the LDS Church. This effort produced the consulting firm’s longest report, dealing with the role and organization of the Presiding Bishopric itself, Church policy positions and administrative procedures, and other internal matters. Most important, among the recommendations made by the consulting firm were ‘a careful review’ of certain potentially embarrassing ‘doctrinal policies’ such as the Negro issue and ‘a serious reconsideration’ of such policies in light of past public relations problems that they had caused. The report strongly urged that Church leaders reassess the race issue and its ‘relevancy’ for the future. The problem posed by building a new temple in São Paulo, with a population largely of mixed blood, was specifically mentioned in this report. Two additional consultants hired for the same purpose voiced similar concerns about the wisdom of continuing a restriction of the Mormon priesthood to whites.

“Many organizational changes touching the average LDS member were made as a result of these reports, but from the standpoint of public relations, none was as important as the change resulting from the consultants’ unanimous recommendations about LDS racial policy. Three years later, on June 9, 1978, Church authorities announced the ‘revelation’ rescinding the traditional ban on a black priesthood. The ‘revelation’ had been preceded by a great deal of prayer, meditation, and meetings among President Kimball and the members of the Council of the Twelve. Whether one wants to credit its inspiration to any divine agency is ultimately unimportant. (Church leaders themselves admitted that the racial issue had been on their minds for a long time.) What is important is that not long before the Church president and prophet’s decision (conscious or subconscious) to announce a new racial policy based on divine ‘revelation,’ several professional consulting firms in which the Church had previously demonstrated confidence suggested to Church leaders that they reconsider the status of blacks in the Mormon Church as part of a major overhaul of Church policy. The fact that such firms were retained in the first place is in no way inconsistent with the Church’s past concern either for its public image or for its long-range theological goals. No other religious group in American society has conducted such a sustained campaign to gain public respectability, nor has such respectability been so integral a part of any other group’s sense of its own destiny.

Bruce R. McConkie’s comparison is interesting, because the Brethren—both in 1890, and in 1978—used the same passage of scripture (D&C 124:49) to justify the course of action they were pursing:

“At the Sixty-first Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct. 6, 1890, immediately following the adoption by the General Assembly of the Manifesto issued by President Wilford Woodruff in relation to plural marriage,” President George Q. Cannon, First Counselor in the First Presidency, made the following remarks: “On the 19th of January, 1841, the Lord gave His servant Joseph Smith a revelation, the 49th paragraph of which I will read: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might, and with all they have, to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them from performing that work; behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.’ [D&C 124:49.] The Lord says other things connected with this, which I do not think it necessary to read, but the whole revelation is profitable, and can be read by those who desire to do so. It is on this basis that President Woodruff has felt himself justified in issuing this manifesto.” (“Remarks,” The Deseret Weekly, vol. 41, no. 17, edited by Charles W. Penrose [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Deseret News Company, 18 Oct. 1890], p. 550; paragraphing omitted.)

Is this passage of scripture (D&C 124:49) valid justification? Five years before the “manifesto” was issued, Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve in the Quorum of the Twelve and in the First Presidency, wrote an editorial that was published in the Church-owned Deseret Evening News:

“Influences are at work whose object is to create an impression in favor of the renunciation or temporary suspension of the law of celestial marriage. Arguments are being used to that end, in a semi-private way, with a view to gaining converts to that idea.

“Perhaps such pleadings may influence a few people who are not in the habit of probing subjects to the bottom and are not particularly gifted with the power to analyze the motives by which men are actuated. Good Latter-day Saints, however, who have within themselves that needful reason for the hope that inspires them are not affected by the shallow pretexts of semi-apostates.

“To give Gospel coloring to the position assumed by those who express themselves as ready to sell out whatever hold they may have on the work of God, they complacently quote from the revelations contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. Attempts are made to twist these divine communications from their plain intent, in order that they may subserve alterior purposes. …

“We are not yet through with treating upon the quotations sometimes referred to by the weak-backed who need a ramrod fastened parallel with their spinal column, and occasional manifest a desire to see the stiffening taken out of others. A favorite passage used by such will be found on page 435 of the same work from which we have already extracted. Here it is:

“ ‘Verily, verily I say unto you, That when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might, and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them from performing that work; behold, it behoveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. [D&C 124:49.] …’

“It is a little singular that some peopel will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation as the building of a house when prevented by their enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not apply even remotely to the present situation.” (“No Relinquishment,” Deseret Evening News, vol. 18, no. 164, edited by Charles W. Penrose [Salt Lake City, Utah Territory: Published by The Deseret News Company, 5 June 1885], p. [2].)

If D&C 124:49 “does not apply even remotely to” suspending plural marriage, then it applies even less to giving the Priesthood to a race that is cursed from holding the Priesthood. It is easier to conceive of the Lord withdrawing a higher law that the people are incapable of obeying, than it is to conceive of Him allowing us to give the seed of Cain (who were to bear their curse until after the end of the Millennium) the Priesthood due to external pressures and administrative difficulties.

Q.—Is there any other evidence we can look at to determine whether or not the curse was actually removed from the seed of Cain?

A.—Are black people still cursed to this day? If they are, they cannot hold the priesthood, for as I previously quoted, “until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences.” (Brigham Young, 23 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 473.)

It is logical to conclude that if the mark of the curse (“the flat nose and black skin”) is still present, then the curse itself is also still present. Thus, so long as a person is black, they must still be under that curse. In the Book of Mormon, when a certain group of Lamanites repented of their wickedness, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15). Why wouldn’t it be the same for the seed of Cain? Why would God remove the curse, but leave the mark of the curse? The whole point of the mark was so that people would know if someone was under that curse. Thus, if you see that a person is black, you may know they are under that curse.

In reference to those who bear this “mark,” Brigham Young said that we “see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” (9 Oct. 1859, “Remarks,” reported by G. D. Watt, The Deseret News [weekly], vol. 9, no. 34, edited by Elias Smith [Great Salt Lake City: Published by Elias Smith, 26 Oct. 1858], p. 266; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, edited by Amasa Lyman [Liverpool: Published by Amasa Lyman, 1860], p. 290.)

If the curse was lifted in 1978 or earlier, wouldn’t we find evidence today that black people are just as intelligent as other races? According to recently-created international IQ maps, this is not the case.

Q.—Is there any other evidence that the 1978 policy-changes were wrong?

A.—From all appearances, the Church acted prematurely in 1978. Have the words of Brigham Young been fulfilled? Has “the priesthood [been] taken from this church and kingdom and [has] God le[ft] us to our fate”? Will “the Church … go to destruction”? (Brigham Young, 5 Jan. 1852, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1 [1832–1852], edited by Richard S. Van Wagoner [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009], p. 470.)

Gordon B. Hinckley did say, in reference to the Brethren receiving the 1978 revelation, that “not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.” (15 May 1988, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, vol. 18, no. 10, edited by Hugh W. Pinnock [Salt Lake City, Utah: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct. 1988], p. 70.)

The Lord tells us that “inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it; yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples.” (D&C 97:15–17.)

Ezra refers to the “filthiness” and “uncleanness” of the Canaanites (see Ezra 9:11).

If the curse has not yet been removed from the Canaanites, they are still unclean. If this is true, then the temples have been defiled by the Church allowing black people to enter into them and participate in the ordinances thereof. God will not allow this to go on for much longer. After the Savior returns to the earth, “there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” (Zechariah 14:21.) This verse of scripture alone is a strong piece of evidence against the validity of the 1978 revelation.

51 Responses to “The Church Must Go to Destruction”

How do you feel about the blacks that received the priesthood while Joseph Smith was still the Prophet? One even became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy (Elijah Abel, who was ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith himself). It seems like Church policy has changed more than once on this subject. Also, what of this quote from Brigham Young before he decided to ban blacks from the priesthood and temple?

“Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent [to] regain what we have lost — we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell [referring to Walker Lewis ].”: Brigham Young Papers, March 26, 1847, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.

He clearly supported at least this black receiving the priesthood. So does he contradict himself and therefore his revelations are false? Perhaps it was him who was perusing his own agenda and refusing to listen to the Lord instead of the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency in 1978. There is much evidence to suggest that the actions of William McCary strongly influenced President Young’s decision to institute the priesthood ban for blacks.

I also feel that you misrepresented Joseph Smiths views. Yes, he said that the Church’s official stance was not abolitionist, but one of Smiths main platforms when he ran for president was to free the slaves.

I think a lot of your quotes were taken out of context. Such as the quote from “Try the Spirits.” The full quote is as follows.

“How it may be asked was this known to be a bad angel? by the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.”

So in this instance, Joseph Smith was not teaching us how to discover if a revelation was true or false, rather he was teaching us how to discover if an angel is from God or not.

On the same token, during Jesus’ mortal ministry, he contradicted almost everything that was formerly knows about His church. That has been the pattern of most of the bible. For example, in Moses’ time, only Levites could hold the priesthood, and only the Aaronic priesthood at that. They were required to do sacrifices and such. When Jesus came, he changed all that. He said that there wouldn’t be sacrifices anymore, he changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, or from the 7th day to the 1st day. After his death the gospel was extended to the gentiles. He changed much of what had been revealed to previous prophets. Does this make Jesus a false prophet? He contradicted previous revelation. I think as the son of God, He is allowed to do that, also, seeing how it is His church, He is allowed to make appropriate changes at appropriate times.

In the bible many prophets have more than one wife, yet take a look at Jacob 3:5

“Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.”

So again, this contradicts a previous revelation. Does that make it false? No, it means that the Lord can reveal and command His church as He sees fit during different times and dispensations.

Overall I think it is a very weak argument to say that the 1978 revelation is false because it contradicts what previous church leaders have said. There is overwhelming evidence that shows the rules change as the Lord sees fit. They always have. That is the point of having a prophet, to receive revelation for the church. Yes, policies will change from time to time, even major church policies, but that does not make them false.

Also, you cannot scrutinize the 1978 church leaders for only seeing what they wanted to see, unless you also scrutinize Brigham Young for the same.

Something else of interest. Two of Elijah Abel’s descendants were given the priesthood AFTER the ban by President Young.

I feel like the situation needs to be examined from both sides, not previously having decided what the answer is.

Jeremiah S. Hawks,
In answer to your question, “How do you feel about the blacks that received the priesthood while Joseph Smith was still the Prophet?” I believe I answered that in my post itself: Where “the priesthood may have been bestowed upon men tainted with this blood, in all such cases their ordinations must be regarded as invalid.” (Joseph F. Smith, in Minutes of Meeting, 26 Aug. 1908, George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah.)

As far as Brigham Young’s statement, dated 26 March 1847, it was recorded out of context. Whoever reported it failed to report the rest of the conversation, before and after. WHAT, exactly, “has nothing to do with the blood”?

I’m fully aware that black men were ordained to the Priesthood during the 1830s and 1840s, and that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young knew about it, or permitted it to some extent on certain occasions.

I believe that Joseph and Brigham did not fully understand the subject yet. The Lord reveals line upon line, precept upon precept. In regard to Elijah Abel, “President [John] Taylor said it seemed that in his case it was probably like many other things done in the early days of the Church, such as baptism for the dead; at first, persons were baptized without records being taken and as the Lord gave further light and revelation things were done with greater order; but what had been done through lack of knowledge, that was not altogether correct in detail, was allowed to remain. He thought that probably it was so in Brother Abel’s case; that he, having been ordained before the word of the Lord was fully understood, it was allowed to remain.” (In minutes of “Council Meeting,” June 4, 1879, Adam S. Bennion Papers, LDS Archives.)

I personally believe, however, that Elijah Abel’s ordination is invalid. Again, please refer to my post, “What happens if a black man has the Priesthood conferred upon him, or he is ordained to an office in the Priesthood?”

I did NOT misrepresent Joseph Smith’s views. Read the entire issue of Messenger and Advocate from which I quote him. Joseph always held the position that people were justified in holding the sons of Cain in servitude. He did change his mind with what would be best to do in the United States. At first, Joseph and Oliver believed that the negro should be in servitude, or else transported to another continent, because it would be dangerous for them to roam free in America. Later, when Joseph ran for President, he decided it best to free the negro, but would have them confined by strict law to their own race. Joseph Smith is so plain in defending the concept of black servitude that you can’t accuse me of taking him out of context. He even quotes Genesis, the “servant of servants” verse to support his position. Brigham Young, as you know, also believed “good, wholesome” slavery was justified, and was good for black people. However, he said he personally wouldn’t use slaves, because they would impoverish him. So although Brigham personally believed it was justifiable, he didn’t think it was the best way for his own family to get work done. Joseph Smith agreed with the principle of slavery, that it was justified, because it was of “divine” origin, but didn’t think it was best for the United States. Brigham Young said “slavery was the ruin of the South” in his Office Journal, Book D.

Also, I did NOT take his quote from “Try the Spirits” out of context. Yes, he’s talking about detecting false angels. But the principle is the same. It doesn’t matter whether its an angel, a man in a suit in 1978, or a revelation. Truth does not contradict truth. If a former revelation is true, anything in the future that contradicts it is false. Don’t get caught up on non-essential details. Understand the principle behind what he is teaching.

Now, you say that new prophets contradicting former prophets is ok. You claim that new revelations frequently contradict old ones. This I disagree with.

There’s a huge difference between an old revelation saying “for now, we will do such and such,” and a new revelation saying “we will no longer do such and such, but now we will do something different.” Where’s the contradiction? The old revelation never said “we will do such and such FOREVER.” You’re right, policies and practices change.

You say that Jesus contradicted Moses. Moses NEVER said his policies were to stand forever, and that they would never change. So there’s no contradiction.

Brigham Young, however, said the blacks wouldn’t get the priesthood until after the millennium, so there is a clear contradiction between his statements, and Spencer W. Kimball’s “revelation.” In this particular case, we have an actual timetable that’s being contradicted. There is no timetable contradiction in all the examples you’ve referred to.

I don’t care who gave black people the Priesthood in this dispensation, or which general authority or president of the Church approved it. You cannot “give that which the Lord had denied.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, letter to Mr. Joseph H. Henderson, 10 Apr. 1963, copy in possession of the author of this website).

I don’t know if Brigham Young knew more than Joseph Smith on this subject. But if he did, so what? Do we believe in continued revelation after Joseph Smith died, or did God reveal everything unto Joseph, and there wasn’t to be any more after him? If God gives new revelation after Joseph Smith dies, then naturally some of his successors will know more on particular subjects than he did while he was alive. I personally believe the Lord revealed more to Brigham Young on this subject after Joseph’s death. One thing is for sure: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, and it mentions right in there that the seed of Canaan was cursed from holding the Priesthood.

I just realized something: The claim of denying the priesthood to descendants of Cain kind of violates the principle of the 2nd Article of Faith and its numerous supporting scriptures in even the Old Testament.

I hadn’t finished reading the post when I made my original comment, but I’m glad I read the whole thing as one of the quotations from Joseph Smith about, “Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God,” is one I’d remembered reading in my D&C class in school but could not remember the exact source.

I’d been trying to track that sucker down for over a year and a half since I first paraphrased it for a comment I left on the Pure Mormonism blog. Thanks!

This was very insightful. Even though I pretty much dismiss any quote by Brigham Young, this post helped me understand the issue is not black and white(pun intended). I believe that the curse of Cain is something significant but I don’t believe a person can be judged to be a descendant of Cain simply by the color of their skin. I think that because of America;s history we view this thing a s “black people” vs. “white people.” However in reality there is not such thing as a black person or a white person. Instead every person comes from some ancient tribe or mix thereof.

The commandment for the Israelites not to breed with outsiders was not saying, don’t breed with those black people. Rather it was a command not to breed with those outside their tribe, thus polluting their tribe and culture. I think this is the bases on which the Curse of Cain should be viewed. but this is a very hard thing for American’s to do because we are so obsessed by judging skin color rather than tribal affiliation.

Another issue I’m curious about is that if we are not to mix with other races(or “black” people specifically) then why did Noah marry and have children with a daughter of Cain?

Lastly I’m curious how Jeremiah S. Hawks thinks that an unchanging God can be constantly changing?

Why do you pretty much dismiss any quote by Brigham Young? Can you not judge truth on its own merits, or do you hold an automatic bias against anything he says?

I personally like Brigham Young’s philosophy of salvation. It’s rational, consistent, and feels good to me. It seems to be in harmony with what I observe in the universe around me. May I ask why you dislike his teachings?

Where did you read or hear that Noah married a daughter of Cain?

By the way, I really enjoyed your post about Thomas S. Monson not being a prophet, seer, or revelator. It helped open my eyes to things I hadn’t thought of before. I’ve shared it with a lot of people.

I agree that the Israelites were not to mingle with ANYONE outside their tribe. Yet, when you read the list of different groups of people in the Old Testament that the Israelites were told not to mix with, you find that almost every group mentioned, with few exceptions, were descendents of Ham. There is a clear and indisputable emphasis on Ham’s descendants.

The Book of Abraham mentions this lineage as being cursed from holding the Priesthood. I see three possibilities: 1) The Book of Abraham is a fraud. 2) The book is true, but the curse has since been removed. 3) The book is true, and the curse has NOT been removed.

Joseph Smith said Canaan’s curse had not yet been removed, and according to Zechariah 14:21, they still won’t be allowed in the temple during the millennium.

I guess I should have said, I’m very cautious with Brigham’s words. All people have good an bad in them. However we have to keep in mind that Brigham Young claimed that the Quorum of the Twelve should lead the church, but then changed his mind and organized a new first presidency with himself as president. Brigham Young required Plural Marriage for exaltation. At some point he developed an intense hatred of “black” people. Which is why I view comments such as “is the flat nose and black skin” with caution.

However I’m not opposed to a priesthood ban on descendants of Cain. But I don’t believe that it is possible to label all “black” people as descendants of Cain. Skin color is so subjective that it cannot be accurately used to determine lineage. What color skin is considered “black”? It is just the very very dark people? Or is it the average brown? What about light brown? Since the color of skin is a spectrum of brown, any grouping of color we make is seperated at arbitrary points. How then can we use an arbitrary grouping to determine the correct lineage of Cain?

Additionally “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other prophet ever spake it before, I will say it now, in the name of Jesus Christ, I know it is true, and others know it!” I think it would be increasingly difficult to find somebody without mixed blood. Compounding the problem is that since arbitrary skin color categorization cannot be used to determine lineage, how to we know who has the mixed blood?

I hope that all makes sense. i misread you comment about Noah’s wife. It was Ham’s wife you were referring to. My understanding that Noah’s wife was a descendant of Cain come from the Book of Jasher, but I could be wrong.

I have gone the rounds with this reasoning several times. In fact there is a “sect” (for lack of better terminology) based in central Utah that purports almost exactly what you claim on this site. I see no good result ever come from the who’s got the better quote/reference/doctrinal POV. I instead would just like to make some simple rudimentary points and ask some rudimentary questions.

1. You are obviously smart, or at the least, very well read and learned on the matters you address on your site. Here is what makes me always question people like you: SInce I do not know you, I cannot make any assumptions about your knowledge or intelligence, but I have known men personally who are brilliant and as well read and learned (if not more so) on these same subjects who have come to completely different conclusions and who also claim to personal revelation to confirm their findings. When I reference these men (I am thinking of three specifically, all of which are just regular church members) I finf it interesting that not all came to the same conclusions, but none the less conclusions that differed from yours. Why are your claims any more valid than theirs? Why should I not pass you off as another run of the mill apostate who let his intellect get the best of him? What qualifies your interpretations as being more true than another?

Then there are the obvious specific church leaders who have been touted as geniuses who also have come to conclusions that differ from yours. With men with such intellect and association with the church, one can only assume these men to be knowingly leading people astray. Are these men evil?

2. As far as I have ever read in the Bible, BOM, D&C, and POGP, God has always, through these standard works, laid out the basic outline of the fate of the world. The Mormon church, more than any other, sticks to that outline. Meaning adam, Moses, the law of moses, Christ, the great apostasy and dark ages, and then the rebirth of the true church, second coming (yes a very crude outline I know) Now it seems to me that if what you are saying is true, we have just seen the second great apostasy take place. God is actually taken his priesthood and gospel yet again completely away from the Earth for a second time! Why in the world would God not have mentioned that in any standard work? Why would he leave us poor Mormons to follow fallen prophets without any instruction? It seems so inconsistent with scripture to let us all just dwindle like this under the assumption that this was the church established again on the Earth to stay until Christ comes again to run it.

I am actually not here to defend or argue for the church as much as I am to just suggest you are just one in a million of guys who went on a two year, five year, lifetime, whatever study frenzy and decided the church wasn’t true. So why are your ideas any more accurate or believable than Dr. John Mcarthur or the infamous Ed Decker? Or a myriad of other more learned and read people who have entirely different claims all supported with evidence and fact? Unless you are telling me you had a vision, you had angels tell you, or some other miracle that would be consistent with scriptural procedure, or you are following someone who claims as much,(Even if it sounded crazy, at least you would be consistent with other prophets who went against the the whole like Nephi or Samuel the Lamanite, I know you are not claiming to be a prophet, but you are claiming things that are of a nature that God has always used a prophet to announce and validate) than I am lead to chalk you up as another Ex Mormon who read a ton of books and decided the church wasn’t true. It’s not compelling enough for me anymore, there are too many of you that contradict each other and you all seem insanely smart. None of you can explain away the intense feelings of what I perceive to be the spirit when I have used my priesthood, or heard an apostle speak, or witnessed a miracle.

I realize I am sounding elementary in my reasoning, but like I said, we can battle with our interpretations of who said what, in what context and how we perceive it until we are blue in the face and in the end we will both just be sitting behind the keyboard, not understanding how the other person just isn’t getting it. It’s the little simple things that seem to be left overlooked.

My claims aren’t more valid than any other person’s unless my claims are supported to a greater extent by a literal interpretation of the word of God. Literal interpretation was the rule Joseph Smith gave us. Even this, however, is insufficient unless a person is aided in their comprehension by the power of the Holy Ghost.

False prophets are always called geniuses by an apostate people. The conclusions they’ve come to lead me to believe they’re either ignorant, stupid, or they’ve subconsiously deceived themselves because they are afraid of the truth. Are these men evil? I don’t think I’m qualified to make that judgment.

You are apparently unaware of what the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants say about the Gentile Church falling away before the second coming. The Gentiles, we are told, wlll reject the fulness of the Gospel, the times of the Gentiles will be over, they will become as salt that has losts its savor, and they will be trodden under foot. To think the Gentile Saints will successfully progress towards Zion as a whole is to completely ignore what’s plainly and explicitly stated in the standard works. If you think Zion prospers, and all is well, then the devil cheateth your soul.

You say that it seems inconsistent with scripture that God would allow us to be led astray by false prophets. Yet, isn’t that what happened almost 2000 years ago? The Church fell away, yet there was always someone to lead it.

There are many supposed “truths” that are based upon nothing but tradition and assumption. One of those is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would remain righteous, would progress, and would be fully intact when the Lord comes, without any major cleansing, judgments, apostasy, or loss of priesthood.

I haven’t had any visions. I simply believe what Joseph, Brigham, and their contemporaries said. They told us when we see such and such, we may KNOW we are apostate and have lost the priesthood.

I think they key here is to understand what exactly LDSApostasy is saying and how he differs from the characters you referenced above. Ed Decker and the like are against and rail against Mormonism and everything attached to it. Everything from Asael Smith to the Second Coming are on the table to them and they find to ways to disagree with it ALL.

On other hand, LDSApostasy cites teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, their contemporaries and, in some cases, more modern “apostles” to show, simply, how the modern Church (TM) has gone away from the foundations laid by and through Joseph Smith.

Further more, to use interchangably, the words “church” and “Gospel” is where most stumble. Because someone may have disagreements with and/or believe that the “Church” itself has descended into a state of apostasy DOES NOT equate to someone believing “Mormonism” as a whole to be a sham.

For the same reason he allowed the Church to go completely astray during the days of the Roman Empire: because the members of the Church didn’t deserve a course correction, and refused to have one. The course the members of the Church are pursing is what needs correcting, and God can’t make people change. He gives us our agency.

Many are wondering how God is going to divide the righteous from the wicked as was prophesied through the Prophet Joseph (D&C 86:6-7). This great confusion over many doctrines may well be God’s method for dividing the wheat from the tares (those who have the Spirit and those who don’t). It reminds me of this quote from Heber C. Kimball:

“…I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to the extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a TEST, a TEST, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?”
(Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, pp. 446-7)

This is my primary test now for determining whether I trust the message someone is giving. Do I feel the Spirit when I listen to them? It doesn’t matter how convincing their argument. The Spirit must testify as it did as I was reading the Book of Mormon. It is by the Spirit that we must test all spirits, whether they be of man, God or the devil.

Andrew, I believe it is because it never was ‘his’ church. There was never a necessity for a ‘restoration’ for the Gospel of Jesus Christ has never been lost, and in fact has become more available throughout the world as time goes on, far far more then his words were available for the people in Christ’s day.

Priesthood (God’s power and authority) come naturally to those men and women who truly live Christ’s teachings and gain Charity. Righteous people don’t need any thing else given to them to bless, heal, receive revelation, prophesy or write scripture or lead people to Christ. All they need it love, Charity, and they are prophets and prophetesses.

The only restoration coming since Christ’s day is when Christ himself returns and establishes his Church again in Zion, with the few humble followers of Christ throughout the world that he can find, and they will be few, just like he said they would be. So few it seems almost impossible to find anyone who even believes in Christ and his teachings today, let alone lives them.

I believe there has been a great apostasy in the Church & that it happened in Joseph Smith’s day. The majority of the members rejected the Prophet Joseph Smith’s teachings & the Gospel & thus they lost their Prophet & Priesthood & were allowed to dwindle in unbelief until today. I know Joseph was a true Prophet & the Book of Mormon is true & that the Priesthood was restored. But the Priesthood was mostly lost because of the wickedness of men, who lost their power & authority when they supported or did evil.

The latter day Apostasy is warned about many times in the Book of Mormon. And even without those confirming scriptures, all one needs to do is look around & they see that everyone, even in the Church, has been deceived today, to ‘support or do’ the vilest of evils, except a rare few. And yet they are so asleep & can’t see the evil they are doing, all the while feeling so right & righteous. It’s almost impossible to find a member of the Church today who believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They go to Church every week, serve faithfully in their callings, pay their tithes & offerings, do temple work, have family night & scripture study & family prayer, & are generally wonderful & honorable people, yet they still have no clue how deceived to believe in & support & do evil they are. They are as the ‘Terrestrial spirits’ that the D&C 76 describes, wonderful kind people yet blinded by the evil craftiness & philosophies of men & devils. It is mind boggling & scary to see how easy it is to fall & be deceived & never know it. And when you try to teach the members of the Church the Gospel that Jesus Christ taught, they utterly reject it as false, wrong & even horrible. They do not believe God would require them to live such a high law & have to serve & sacrifice to that extent. They call good evil & right wrong, as prophesied they would.

When you realize the level of righteousness & Christlike love that it takes to be & prove that one is a true Prophet, whether personally or for the Church, you realize that Joseph Smith could never have lied & deceived the Church about his being innocent of polygamy. I do not believe Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy, he instead preached & warned against it his whole life, & tried to protect the Saints from ever falling for it or the rumors that he was living it or authorizing it secretly. He left his testimony & warning to all, then & now, to not fall for polygamy or the hearsay & rumors that he ever did such vile evil. To say that a true Prophet would do such evil things, especially to his wife, who he was obligated above all else to protect her heart & happiness with his life, is to bring condemnation upon one’s self for speaking such evil about God’s chosen Prophet.

We are commanded to live worthy of the Holy Spirit so we can discern between true Prophets & false Prophets, which will be in every age of time, especially in these last days, where we have been warned that there will be many false prophets among us, who will be so convincing & seem so righteous & wonderful, that they will deceive many, if not most, of the most righteous among us.

We must realize that no Prophet can ever preach anything contrary to what Christ taught & what the Book of Mormon taught & the D&C that Joseph brought forth taught. (1844 edition, which did not include section 132, but instead taught strict eternal monogamy). Doctrine is always the same, in any age of time, God is the same, yesterday, today & forever. ‘Contrary’ teachings are how we are to ‘know’ that someone is teaching falsely, especially one who claims to be a Prophet, All truth is harmonious with itself.

The Book of Mormon never condones polygamy, The verse ‘about raising up a righteous seed’ that people use to try to use to condone polygamy in certain situations, is completely misinterpreted. History, common sense & seeing it practiced, proves that polygamy actually slows down the birth rate & produces a far more weak & wicked people than monogamy every did. For unhappy depressed, lonely, neglected, abused women have a much harder time raising strong righteous children, then happy, loved, well-cared for wives who receive true love & faithfulness & respect from their husbands who prove they have no eyes, feelings or unfaithful actions for any other woman. Unconditional true love & complete lifelong exclusive faithfulness for only ‘one’ wife, even after her death, is & always has been the true test & requirement for Exaltation for men. Few there be that are willing to do that & give that kind of Christlike love & faithfulness to his wife.

And, as Jacob taught in the BoM, children lose respect & confidence in fathers who treat their mother so disrespectfully & abusively as polygamy always does. Righteous Monogamy is the fastest & only way to raise a strong righteous generation. So that verse in Jacob 2, used by so many, makes no sense at all if believed it supports polygamy. But interpreted the other way, that if God does not command his people to ‘live the commandments’ then they will hearken unto these ‘whoredoms’ (polygamy) as they always have, since the beginning of time. That makes perfect sense & is true.

I believe that the curse upon the Blacks is & always was ‘removed’ just as soon as any of them repented & became righteous. There is a curse upon any of us if we are wicked. Joseph seemed to gain more light & knowledge about slavery & the oppression of the blacks, the older he got. I believe he came to realize how evil slavery was. If he lived longer he probably would have also learned that it is no sin for blacks & whites to marry, as we understand today that it is not sin. Doctrine never changes. Only people, even Prophets, are still learning & may not understand all things yet. I believe the scriptures that seem to be against marrying blacks, are only referring to the righteous not marrying the unrighteous, which most of the blacks may have been unrighteous in those days, just as most all of the whites were too.

It was the ‘refusal’ of white men to accept their black brothers as equals & be willing to share power & position with them, just like they couldn’t accept their sisters as equals & recognize their right to every blessing, power & position that men hold. Such refusal to respect their black brother’s equality caused men & leaders to not give blacks the Priesthood. I believe God was always willing to give blacks the Priesthood & leadership positions in the Church or Country, just as much as any white man, as long as he was righteous.

When reading & considering any quote from any Prophet, we must realize that Prophets aren’t perfect. History proves they can & often do fall & lead people astray. Even true Prophets can & do at times teach false things, though they will catch & correct themselves before too long, because they have the Holy Spirit as their guide. False Prophets also teach many true things along with many false things that lead the people astray.

From Moses to Abraham to Joseph & Brigham & up until today, it has always been the test of this life to see who can be deceived by false prophets or false teachings, even from true prophets. Many,if not most true Prophets, like Moses, were leading a wicked people, & thus the things that they taught were not so much ‘commandments’ from God & his ideal law, but they were trying to do damage control (like with divorce & polygamy) & help the people not sin ever greater. They were lesser laws & requirements that they would accept. Moses did not condone polygamy or divorce, they were just as evil abominations as they always were, but Moses tried to protect the women & children caught in it all, as best he could, as long as the women were going to go along with it. It was the same in Joseph’s day & today, people want polygamy & divorce, which is just serial polygamy. But those things are still the adultery that Christ taught they were & it is impossible for even a Prophet to change or teach anything contrary to what Christ taught, or he proves himself false.

Abraham & Jacob (& their wives) were never commanded to live polygamy, but were pressured to fall for it & had to learn the hard way that it was not a righteous thing. We don’t have whole correct story in the Bible, for the Bible is not always correct or complete, everything in it must be taken with a huge grain of salt until it becomes translated correctly. Thus the doctrine in the Book of Mormon & the D&C (1844 edition) always trumps anything the Bible may say.

AV, you might want to read the book of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 2:61-62 is referenced at the end of D&C 85, but you won’t fully understand the context of that verse unless you read the entire book. The book of Nehemiah describes much the same scenario, since Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries. Lineage is the dividing issue and you’ll see that referred to in the very next revelation Joseph received:

“Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers— For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.”
(D&C 86:8-11)

Have we seen a “restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began?” If not, then the priesthood is still restricted to those who are not of the lineage of the prophets (the servants being addressed in D&C 86). If lineage didn’t matter, God wouldn’t talk about it. He doesn’t waste his or our time like that.

My beliefs have evolved since I wrote the above post, and after further study and testing, I don’t believe that even Joseph was a true prophet, though I give him the benefit of a doubt that he didn’t live polygamy, for everyone deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty, especially of such vile things like polygamy. Especially since there is no proof he ever preached or practiced it.

So I don’t believe the BoM is true scripture, though Joseph did write some great stories that can teach us truth and good lessons. There are far too many falsehoods and things that are not in harmony with Christ in the BoM, to be considered true scriptures by true prophets. True Prophets would not have written or published the BoM and led people to believe many of the things therein.

And I don’t believe Priesthood is passed down by lineage, for very few people ever prove worthy of God’s Priesthood and power, it can’t come by someone just giving it to you or even being born & raised by someone who has it. True Priesthood comes by gaining Charity, all men and women who gain Charity gain the Holy Priesthood and power of God to do all things.

Most things in the Bible can’t be trusted as true, since it is riddled with errors and falsehoods and completely false stories. So Christ’s words are all we are left with to discern truth with and learn God’s ways. Even Christ’s apostles were very fallible men who taught much error and we need to compare their teachings with Christ’s to know if what they said is true or not.

The only restoration needed since Christ is when Christ will return and restore his Church in Zion. His Gospel and Priesthood were never lost, they have always been available for righteous people in any age or religion or country to access and live by since the days of Christ.

Charity is God’s power, anyone can gain Charity and thus be a prophet or prophetess. But Charity is much more and harder to gain and rarer then people realize.

Further, if Noah’s wife was supposedly a descendent of Cain, then the other two sons, Shem and Ham, who gave rise to all the other races are all also descendents of Cain. ALL humanity would be descended from Cain. No that makes no sense.

There is a small community of Mormons here in Lusaka, Zambia. Sometimes, well-dressed and polite white young men will go around trying to make converts. If only Zambians knew that Mormons are among the most bigoted and racist of all missionaries, they would give these fellows short thrift. But of course the missionaries never tell the whole truth about the history of the Mormons and I suspect they are making slow progress. I wish one of them would dare to preach to me so I could tie him up in knots concerning this repugnant sect.
From a descendant of Cain and Ham.

It seems more than odd or peculiar that an all loving omnipotent, all powerful creator would create , or allow to be created such derision through the the fabrication of Cain or the Caninites, or that there could be so much confusion amongst the followers of any particular sect of christianity, of which there are 10’s of thousands.

You say that of course we have our “agency”, but that so many leaders’ agency has been wrong and continues to be since the inception of the LDS is confounding. The free will argument and squaring it with a “literal” translation of the old texts means that you are also living a life of sin. How many instances in these semi ancient scripts are filled with egregious acts to be perpetrated on others because God has given an example? How many sons of Cain do you have in your household as slaves?

You explain this away as a precursor of the second coming. But to what end then? Will all of those children and followers of the current church be condemned to hell and fire? Are you prepared to say that all of them are destined for an eternity of pain and suffering while the same god embraces you?

Under any sort of specific scrutiny this position can only be considered arrogant and delusional.

Jesus, for Christ’s sake think for yourselves! If you use others to justify your beliefs you reject the freedom, the intellect, the soul God gave you. Racist, narrow-minded diatribe is what I see here–mental and spiritual masturbation–how does it feel?

Wow…. You Mormons really prove that episode of South Park right every chance you get. Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumdum-dumb, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumdum. How can ALL black people be descendants of ONE person? When the genome (DNA) of Blacks are sequenced, it does NOT show a single common ancestor. Not even close! In fact, the same goes for all us “whities” as well. No matter how many samples of “pure” white-person DNA you sequence, there will never be a SINGLE common ancestor. Your entire argument & logic are VIRULENTLY FLAWED. You can rant and rave about your racial superiority all you want, but it doesn’t make it REALITY. Seriously, WE’RE BEGGING YOU IDIOTS, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, JOIN US IN THE 21st CENTURY. You make all of humanity look bad. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid…

I have to say that I find this extremely hard to follow. I think the major reason has to do with the fact that I am not familiar with the Book of Mormon nor the major tenets of the Mormon religion. However, from what I read before I began to fill dizzy i am curious about a few of the q & a’s. I believe that through the conflation of the bible and the book of mormon, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. How can you prove something by only referring to your text. An example is how that you claim Ham had a wife from Canaan’s land (nevermind that if this land was cursed and barren it makes no sense why Abraham’s offspring was promised it and it was described as a land flowing with milk and honey), I have never read anything that states this in the actual bible or any other reputable text. Also, the bible tells that Ham’s offspring was cursed because he looked upon his fathers nakedness and instead of covering him, made a joke of him. The wife theory is inconsistent. Also, Moses wife was Ethiopian (which is in Africa) and Moses was raised in Egypt and upon meeting his wife and her sisters at the well, they could not tell him apart from the Egyptians and reported to their father Jethro that an Egyptian had helped them water their flock. Unless of course, Mormon faith teaches a different geography as well and Egypt and Ethiopia is not in Africa.

Despite the fact that the earliest humans come from Africa, I have a feeling you do not believe that as that would men everyone is cursed. Though you probably do believe that Ham is the race of Blacks people, Japeth of Asian, and Shem of Semitic and White, all coming from one father Noah, right? Which would suggest that Noah must have contained all that was necessary for all these races to develop, which would mean that Noah had some “Black gene” in him. So Noah is cursed?

What about the part of the bible that mentioned that “Jesus” did away w/ the curse, nailing it to the tree, you know, the whole point of the crucifixion. If one believes the only cursed are Black people and those who mingle with them, I would assume the crucifixion covered that one. Though, I believe anyone who actually even considers what the curse was, it is probably better understood as being the law of sin and sacrifice which was at enmity with man and thus a curse to them… But you can go with Black people I guess…

It would be exhausting to try to tackle every single thing that is mentioned. I won’t, it’s bound to be in vain. But I would just ask what kind of god creates man in his image and likeness and curses a group of those men based on the amount of melanin that he ordained their skin to contain. That type of pettiness is best left to the humans who created the whole concept of “race” and “racism”. It’s simply a distraction and a hindrance to anyone seeking to truly understand and know their Elohim. Everyone is made in his image and likeness, thus if any of us be accursed, you are saying he is. There is a common quote that says something like as far as land is from the heavens, so are our ways from his ways and our thoughts from his thoughts. You really offend the idea of an omnipotent providential God when you attach him with the trivial matters man finds to be obsessed with.

And its pretty interesting that when the DNA of “white” people is sequenced, the earliest common ancestors can ALL be traced back to AFRICA (AKA the land of Canaan, to you retards)…. Wouldn’t you say thats kind of interesting? Just a little bit? Oh well… Im sure you morons will just continue to live your pathetic lives with your blinders on, paying pointless tithes to your hateful and exclusionary CULT.

Thank you for your obviously well-researched position. I concur with your assessment of th 1978 “revelation.” As far as the rest goes, one question: Who was Joseph’s wife through whom most of those in North America descend via Ephraim? Of what heritage was she? Can Brigham Young’s statements (and those of his successors) and the heritage of Joseph’s wife co-exist? Especially the bit about a drop of blood being enough to disqualify from the priesthood? Additionally, we have records of God cursing people’s skins all the time. What is to say that those whose skin curses are more recent and those whose skin cursings are more ancient? Truly you just can’t tell by color of the skin.

@AV: I’ve known quite a few people who share your take on the apostasy. You are well-read in books written by others who have a particular slant on polygamy and priesthood restriction, but not well-read in the scriptures. If you understood their scriptural and doctrinal theses, you would understand that polygamy in its pure practice (not the illegitimate and abusive practice) was instituted by God at various times. I happen to be one that didn’t throw the baby out with the bath water when I realized the LDS church has gone down the high road to apostasy. I believe that Brigham Young and many of his contemporaries were inspired and led the church according to the dictates of the Lord. While polygamy may not be “palatable”, due to our lack of understanding of a higher order of God’s laws, and due to the traditions and culture we’ve been reared in. I believe polygamy is the order of Heaven and is something to which we may look forward with happiness. In its pure practice and intent, it is meant to do everything to enlighten, ennoble and exalt women (and men), not the opposite.

Many of the Saints found living the United Order foreign to their natures for the same reasons as listed above. Try as they did, most found it repugnant to their natures, and they found themselves incapable of embracing it for the exalting principle it was. Hence, the goal of building Zion had to be postponed until a future time when the Lord will prepare a Zion people who are willing to remove themselves from the spoils of Babylon and embrace this Law of Heaven.

For you to dismiss that there was ever a priesthood restriction is to see the sun shining at noonday and deny that it is there. There is too much evidence to support it. While God loves all of His children equally, he does not treat them equally. That same principle is applied among our own families, with our own children. While some children make choices which result in greater privileges and responsibilities, others make choices that result in limiting the freedoms you give them, until such a time as you decide they have paid the price of obedience to established rules (or laws) within your family. The Lord has always had a favored people. What makes them favored? It is the extent to which they adhere to eternal laws and do not reject them. Why is it so difficult to accept that we made choices in our pre-earth life? We lived there for eons of time and made choices which would affect our sojourn here.

Do I think it will be easy for ME to live plural marriage, or the United Order or any of the other higher laws that will most assuredly be revealed by God when “the times of restitution of all things” will come into play? Maybe not. But if I allow the Lord to change my nature, to put off the natural man, so that I can discern that which is of a higher order (one which we lived for those eons of time before coming here), I know I will be able to. Winnie

“I believe polygamy is the order of Heaven and is something to which we may look forward with happiness.”

It’s sick bastards like you that brought the restored church into apostasy. Polygamy is an abomination. In the beginning they were created male and female, not male and female and female and female and … and female. As soon as polygamy gets started, God destroys the earth with a flood, saving the righteous Noah with one wife, and sons with one wife each, and every animal two by two, male and female, not two or three or four…etc. Every appearance of polygamy in the Old Testament after that is part of a screwed up situation where people did not have enough faith (Abraham and Sarah) or get tricked (Jacob and Leah) or some other stupid case where, because of other goals and the general debauchery of the culture, God *tolerates* but never prefers. Book of Mormon spells this out clearly in Jacob 2, so that only sick bastards can twist the words and find an excuse for their evil in the face of plain language.

God turned the church over to judgment when the members in Joseph Smith’s day had craved this evil more than righteousness. God allowed this practice to enter the church so that people with wicked desires like this will receive their righteous judgment.

We all get to believe what we want to believe and if you ‘want’ to live polygamy then that is your right to believe in it, but it doesn’t mean you are right. I actually do base my beliefs on the scriptures which all teach against polygamy (except Brigham’s made up 132). I especially believe in Christ’s teachings above all, and I believe he taught very clearly that polygamy was adultery, in places like Matt. 19:9, which covers remarriage, with or without divorce.

If you can believe Brigham was a righteous man, let alone a prophet, then I understand why you believe in polygamy.

I obviously do not believe in the same God or heaven you do. What is true though is we will each get what we want in the next life, you will get to experience polygamy there to your heart’s content, (at least for awhile) and feel how it feels to be the abused and even how it feels to be the abuser. For mortals seem to only learn right from wrong by sad experience. If reading the horrific accounts of polygamy is not enough to soften your heart and have compassion on women and children in polygamy then you will get to experience it 1st hand in the next life, where we learn all the lessons we wouldn’t learn here. But the wise learn by watching or reading the experiences of others, rather then have to go through sad experience themselves.

I believe in Christ and not in any person or prophet who teaches contrary to him. I don’t consider the Bible to be perfect, in fact I believe it is so riddled with error and falsehoods that it is untrustworthy to take seriously. Even most of it’s Prophets don’t pass the test Christ said to use to discern true prophets, none of them appear to have had Charity, and thus weren’t true followers of Christ, or they fell later in life. There are some truths in the Bible but probably more falsehood and it isn’t even necessary to bother trying to separate the two because we have the pure Gospel of Christ in the New Testament and his few simple words are all we need to learn to live worthy of eternal life

We needn’t be lead astray by so-called prophets in the Old Testament or the 1800’s who fell for whoredoms. Christ warned us about false prophets who will teach whoredoms and it is our test in life to learn to discern them from true prophets. Charity is the key, only true prophets have charity. And Charity and polygamy are polar opposites.

Though I don’t think Joseph was a true prophet anymore, at least he too taught how vile and adulterous and abusive polygamy always was in every instance in history. It appears he was about to excommunicate Brigham Young and other apostle for their adulteries, but he died before he could do it. At least all of Joseph’s writings and scriptures taught against polygamy in all cases and never condoned it.

And Christ’s ‘Golden Rule’ proves the truth, no man would want or allow done to him what he does to his wife or women in polygamy.

Prove all things, by Christ’s teachings. Christ defended women against men’s abuse, adultery and abandonment. Even his apostles had a hard time accepting or understanding his teachings about marriage and respecting women and women’s equality in all things. They did not seem to like that Christ’s wife Mary was ‘the apostle to the apostles’, and higher in Christ’s eyes then them. They weren’t used to respecting and protecting women like Christ taught & did, they were used to their polygamous adulterous abusive society of male dominance and it appears in their writings that none of his apostles ever did learn how to respect women during their life and how to apply Christ’s laws.

@Winnie. Your reply was well said! AoF 9 teaches that God “will yet reveal many great and important things…”. President Young needed further revelation, but apparently neither he nor the LDS were ready for it. You should consider the Second Book of Commandments (1961 to the present) as the possible further revelation promised, if you have not done so. It reveals that the pure negro are not the seed of Adam, and that all of the mixture with the seed of Adam and with the seed of the Pure negro become the seed of Cain. The pure Negro will never receive the Priesthood, but the faithful of the seed of Cain will, but only after the seed of Able come and receive it. Since the seed of Able are not yet on the earth, we can know by that alone that the 1978 claim of revelation did not come from the Lord.

Thank you for your bravery in creating this site. The LDS Church is far too worried about its public image and too little worried about fidelity to sacred teaching and scripture. How far we have fallen and to what end?

I applaud the courage of this site. Too often in the past 30 years the Church leadership has wobbled on doctrine in the interests of good PR, and giving the priesthood to blacks is just one example.

What about the changes in the temple ceremonies? Divinely ordained rites tampered with to assuage the feminists. If a woman has a problem with obeying the priesthood authority in her home when she and her husband can’t agree, her issues go much deeper. She obviously doesn’t grasp the concept of the authority of the priesthood, the divine order, or the responsibilities that go along with being a priesthood holder. If her husband makes a decision because they can’t agree it’s not just his privilege, it’s his responsibility. If he ends up being wrong it’s on him, ALL of it.

Women who refuse to ‘obey or submit’ to husbands or church leaders who think they have authority or say over her, are the only women who understand the truth. God never wants women to allow men to ‘rule over them’ or obey men who think they have authority over her. Only men who 1st submit to and honor, love and serve and respect the equality and equal authority of the wife/woman are trustworthy to live and create a family with.

God never gives husbands authority over wives (that’s BY’s philosophies that he infiltrated into the Church and which Joseph warned the Saints was evil trash and not to listen to such ideas, but BY and other apostles and most men liked the perks such ideas gave them).

God never asks women to go along with a husband’s unilateral decision that she doesn’t agree with. No decision should be made unless both agree. It’s spouse abuse for men to make decisions against the wife’s wishes and feelings, especially when it affects her or the children’s. All righteous husbands put their wife’s desires, wants and feelings before his own in decision making, making her happy above all, unless of course she is asking for something downright evil. If the husband does this then the woman should do the same for him and want to put his happiness, needs, feelings before her own. Then they would just take turns at doing each other’s will.

Besides, Brigham Young never had any authority or Priesthood anyway to be talking or teaching about who else had it or not. His whoredoms and unrighteous dominion made him completely unworthy and untrustworthy of any position or Priesthood or authority. He never was authorized by God to continue the Church, he just got himself voted in and took over. When you look at the facts, it appears Joseph Smith didn’t even have any authority to start a church, write scripture nor be a prophet, let alone Brigham. It was all made up from the beginning, the BoM even appears false and riddled with falsehoods. None of those early leaders really followed Christ or proved they were his true disciples, nor do the church leaders today, for they didn’t or don’t have Charity. I don’t think Brigham even knew what Charity was. And Christ warned us to use and look for ‘Charity’ to discern between true and false prophets.

As to AV’s comment on my post, I hardly know where to begin. Perhaps If I break it down numerically, I can make some sense of this:

1. “God never wants women to allow men to ‘rule over them’ or obey men who think they have authority over her.” Who said anything about ruling over anyone? We all submit to people who have authority everyday: bosses, supervisors, law enforcement, not to mention, God. It’s not a matter of inferiority, and anyone who chooses to interpret it that way has issues, beginning with the character flaws of pride and willfulness.

2. “God never gives husbands authority over wives. . . ” Hmmmm, might want to reread the writings of the Apostle Paul. In Ephesians 5:22 we read: “22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” The catch is that as the wife is submitting to the husband, so also the husband should be submitting to Christ.

3. “God never asks women to go along with a husband’s unilateral decision that she doesn’t agree with. No decision should be made unless both agree.” See above. I agree that decisions should not be unilateral, but there are times when an important decision needs to be made, and for whatever reason, the respective spouses cannot reach agreement. To state that, “No decision should be made unless both agree,” is ludicrous—lives all over the world would screech to a standstill. Would AV have couples in a perpetual state of stalemate? Ridiculous.

4. “It’s spouse abuse for men to make decisions against the wife’s wishes and feelings. . . “.. Wow—spouse abuse? Really? I can introduce you to dozens of women who have gone through genuine spouse abuse who will gladly straighten you out on this issue and definition.

To sum up, again, life is all about submission. We submit to the limitations of our bodies; no one can run 50 mph or leap tall buildings in a single bound, as handy as that might be. We submit to the limitations of law, even when it rankles, because we know it’s for a greater good. Every time we pay taxes, refrain from crime, or register our car, we submit. If husbands are in submission to God, and wives are in loving submission to their husbands (when they can’t agree), and children are in submission to their parents, the family will function smoothly. If people would submit to the dictates of God, society would run smoothly.

Paul obviously did not understand or respect women’s true equality, he was still very influenced by the abusive male dominated philosophies of his day, which shows all through his teachings. While the real truth is that neither spouse has authority over the other and they both equally submit to God, and both equally submit to each other, the man actually proves his submission 1st in order to get the woman to trust and marry him and then the wife will submit to him if he 1st submits to her, so she knows he is really trustworthy to listen to her feelings and desires and wishes. Christ’s teachings about marriage were very hard for the apostles to understand and accept. There are even ancient writings that talk about Christ’s wife Mary as an apostle, which is just what true prophets and a true church would have, female apostles and prophets as much or more then male ones. Of course though we haven’t had a true church on the earth since Christ died. But he will restore his Church when he returns and establishes Zion.

So quoting Paul means nothing for his writings are contrary to Christ’s teachings and the Golden Rule and what the Holy Spirit teaches any righteous woman or man who is willing to learn and accept women’s complete equality in the home, church and society.

LDS tend to idolize prophets and apostles, thinking they can’t be wrong or can’t lead people astray, when they can and often do, even if they are true prophets. So we have to read the scriptures with discernment and compare even apostles and prophets teachings and practices with what Christ taught. It seems you believe Brigham Young and Co. were true prophets, so that speaks volumes and thus we will never agree.

And in the rare event that a decision has to be quickly made and both spouses have different feelings on the matter, a righteous husband would put his wife’s feelings and desires 1st and do whatever she feels is right. So he would always defer to her anyway, but those times are rare that such needs to be done. But even in general, the husband would be constantly trying to please his wife and if he does, then hopefully she would do the same for him.

And I disagree, God doesn’t require anyone in marriage, church or society to submit to anyone else’s rule over them. If people are righteous they can decide things for themselves. But of course society and churches usually always set up unjust and controlling rules and leaders like you talk of, but God doesn’t want anyone to be ruled over as long as they can live righteously and self govern themselves. If you agree with your boss then you stay working for him, if not you leave. It’s all voluntary, he doesn’t rule over you. The exceptions would only be God (not prophets) or children that need to follow parents for their own safety, etc.

And yes, forcing unilateral decisions on a spouse is abusive and very unChristlike, though most women throughout the ages have got used to it and gone along with such abuse and many even say they don’t mind it or they like it that way, for it means less responsibility on them.

And submission is only righteous when it’s voluntary and agreeable to the one submitting. God never asks us to submit to things or people that are not righteous or that we don’t agree with and he is against spouses forcing spouses to go along with things. Now again, God is one exception, and if people don’t submit to God then there are consequences in the next life and maybe here on earth too, if laws are just and righteous, which is practically unheard of though. But usually societies are led and controlled by unrighteous leaders and laws forcing people to submit to them, which is never God’s plan and never his requirement. No one is required to support or comply with unrighteous leaders or laws (think founding fathers). And there would be no submission to anyone in society if everyone was righteous and self governing.

Society and marriages only function ‘smoothly’ and righteously when men respect, protect and honor women’s true and equal rights, voice, position and authority in the home, church and society and seek to fulfill women’s desires 1st, above their own.

Winnie,
I am familiar with your take on polygamy too, it seems to be the common belief of most men who like the idea of polygamy. But Brigham Young is not my God, nor my Savior, nor even my prophet. I believe he was one of the most vile abusive evil men to have ever walked the earth.

Righteous men respect, love, protect & are completely faithful for eternity to their 1 wife, they would never believe in or fall for polygamy ever, let alone as coming from God, just like Joseph didn’t believe it came from God. Joseph was too smart to fall for such a thing, or an angel who came preaching such vile contrary doctrine to what Christ taught. Most importantly righteous men believe in Christ, who taught against polygamy, teaching that it was adultery. His teachings trump all. I don’t need to even read Joseph’s own words against polygamy to know it’s wrong, for I believe in Christ and his teachings.

Many great men, even prophets, highly favored of God throughout history have sadly eventually fallen for the whoredom of polygamy, so I am not surprised that most men fall for it too. For it is the disposition of nearly all men to fall for such things and support such abuse against women. But Christ taught the truth, which few men want to see or believe, let alone live by.

You can believe in and follow Brigham Young all you want, it mattereth not to me, but I believe in Christ and in the teachings of Joseph Smith and the ancient prophets of the BoM. I don’t believe Joseph lied, as of course BY claimed, for true prophets don’t lie and deceive people or they aren’t true prophets anymore, let alone do they lie to their wife and run around after other women behind or in front of her.

Polygamy is and always will be an abusive whoredom any way you look at it. It does not even pass the Golden Rule test, for men would not want done to them what they do to women in polygamy. God commands men to respect, love and remain completely faithful to their 1 wife for all eternity, He has never commanded men to live polygamy or to abuse their wives or be unfaithful to them in any way, shape or form. But false prophets teach such abuse all the time.

I’m sorry that you have fallen for men like Brigham Young, I encourage you to study and live the words of Christ, and gain true charity/love, especially for your wife, for then you will understand Christ’s words and they will teach you all things which you should do and they will reveal the falsehoods of false prophets like BY who preach completely contrary to Christ.

“It is logical to conclude that if the mark of the curse (“the flat nose and black skin”) is still present, then the curse itself is also still present. Thus, so long as a person is black, they must still be under that curse. In the Book of Mormon, when a certain group of Lamanites repented of their wickedness, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15). Why wouldn’t it be the same for the seed of Cain? Why would God remove the curse, but leave the mark of the curse? The whole point of the mark was so that people would know if someone was under that curse. Thus, if you see that a person is black, you may know they are under that curse.”
Why don’t the modern day Lamanites become more white through their conversions?

Almost all of your modern revelatory authority for Blacks being banned from holding the priesthood stems from Brigham Young’s racist hyperventilations.

Here are some other things that Brigham Young said:
That God had never appeared to him.
He had never heard God’s voice in directing the management of the Kingdom.
He had never seen an angel.
That, “I don’t profess to be such a prophet as Joseph Smith or Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser.”.
Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom; pg 42. Denver Snuffer

What does the Book of Mormon say:
2 Nephi:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Did you even read my whole post? The blacks being barred from the priesthood is contained in the Book of Abraham. Last time I checked, Brigham Young didn’t translate the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith identifies modern-day “negroes” as that same lineage mentioned in Abraham that was cursed from holding the priesthood. He also mentioned that their “curse was not yet removed.”

Brigham Young was never as harsh as the Bible. If you reject Brigham Young for being “racist,” you’d certainly reject the Bible if you actually read it. The Bible denies the blacks no less than Brigham Young ever did.

Joseph Smith never ordained a single black man, despite what Elijah Abel’s wikipedia article says. It’s a false claim, not supported by the references given for the claim. I have copies of Elijah Abel’s ordination records I obtained personally from the Church History Library. Joseph Smith didn’t ordain Elijah or the others you speak of, but he also didn’t prevent their ordinations either. According to witnesses, Joseph later stated that their ordinations were invalid. I believe these witnesses.

The Bible is so filled with error and falsehoods as to render it completely untrustworthy to use. We don’t know what in it is really from God or not, unless it agrees with Christ’s teachings. And Christ taught against all racism and inequality. Thus we know the Bible is wrong if it teaches anything offensive to the Blacks.

Also, the Book of Abraham appears false and made up by Joseph Smith, just like the BoM (which is filled with falsehoods too). Joseph Smith and all the leaders who followed him appear to be false prophets when compared with the standards and teachings of Christ. None of them appear to follow Christ, especially not Brigham Young or any church leaders who came after him.

Before we base our beliefs on the Bible or BoA we should start at Christ’s teachings and compare everything with what he said, before we believe in or accept anything or anyone as true. That’s how we are kept from being led astray by false prophets.

Since you haven’t approved my post (December 29th), I’m guessing that I must have hit a nerve. I would suggest that you read the book “Parting the Heavenly Gift” by Denver Snuffer and then ponder and pray.

You Snufferites are a class of intellectual know-it-alls. By the way, it shows arrogance on your part to surmise that anything you said would hit any kind of a nerve. You’ve come up with the same old trite and canned answers that all Snufferites are guilty of. If you would be honest enough to look at the facts as ldsapostasy has presented, you may actually begin to see that you may be wrong and someone else may be right.

AV,
You appear to be a very confused person who has decided that the only interpretation of anything that you will submit to is your own. Sad. I hope you find healing for all of that anger you have pent up inside of you; you’re in my prayers.

And who’s interpretation should I go with if not my own? Men who don’t keep Christ’s commandments? And I don’t have anger but great joy in following & discerning by Christ’s teachings, but thanks, I will pray for you too.